AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

341 ITR 563High Court2012#3373 most cited

What is AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Bonus or commission paid to directors for services rendered as part of their terms of employment is allowable as a deduction, and Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act does not apply in such cases.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

AMD Metplast · section 36(1)(ii) · bonus to directors · commission to directors · services rendered · terms of employment · deductible expense · business expenditure

Also reported as

269 CTR 44

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 36(1)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)section 36(1)section 36salaryappeal before the tribunalprescribedpersoncompanysection 14indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

Sri Prialakshmi Spinners P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2240/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी !ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2240/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Shri Priyalakshmi Spinners P. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of SF No.119/4, Myvadi Village, Income Tax, Salary Circle-I, Udumaplet – 642 203. Coimbatore. [PAN: AAFCS 0700 H] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.43/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 201…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…hzadaNand and Sons vs CIT: 108 ITR 358 (SC) - Hero MotoCorp Limited Vs. JCIT & DCIT Vs. Hero MotoCorp Ltd. ITA Nos. 1545/Del/2015 and 2424/Del/2015 (AY 2010-11) ITA No. 1609/Del/2016 and 914/Del/2016 (AY 2011-12) Page 235 of 484 AMD Metplast P. Ltd. v. DCIT: 341 ITR 563 (Del) - - CIT v. Bony Polymers Ltd.: ITA No. 1298/Del/2011 (Del) - DCIT v. Celsius Refrigeration P. Ltd.: ITA No. 4746/Del/2010 (Del) Career Launcher (India) Ltd. v. ACIT: ITA No. - 4924/Del/2009 (Del) [affirmed by Del HC in 358 ITR 179] - DCIT v. CTI Shipbrokers India P. Ltd: ITA No. 84(Del) 2011 CIT v Convertech Equipments (P.) Ltd: 217 - Taxma…

M/S. Botil Oil Tools India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5375/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…is also covered in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Convertech Equipments Pvt.Ltd. – 2012-TIOL-1002-HC-DEL-IT where it is held as follows :- “Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Metaplast Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT, (2012) 341 ITR 563, after referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motors Services Company Ltd. v. CIT, (1946) 14 ITR 647 opined that the commission, if found to be paid for services 3 ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 others rendered by the director as per the terms of the appointment, cannot be said to be distribution of dividend or profits in the guise of c…

M/S. Botil Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2382/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…is also covered in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Convertech Equipments Pvt.Ltd. – 2012-TIOL-1002-HC-DEL-IT where it is held as follows :- “Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Metaplast Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT, (2012) 341 ITR 563, after referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motors Services Company Ltd. v. CIT, (1946) 14 ITR 647 opined that the commission, if found to be paid for services 3 ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 others rendered by the director as per the terms of the appointment, cannot be said to be distribution of dividend or profits in the guise of c…

M/S. Botil Oil Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 973/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, DR
Section 309Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37(1)

…is also covered in the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-1 Vs. Convertech Equipments Pvt.Ltd. – 2012-TIOL-1002-HC-DEL-IT where it is held as follows :- “Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Metaplast Pvt.Ltd. v. DCIT, (2012) 341 ITR 563, after referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motors Services Company Ltd. v. CIT, (1946) 14 ITR 647 opined that the commission, if found to be paid for services 3 ITA-973/D/2010 & 3 others rendered by the director as per the terms of the appointment, cannot be said to be distribution of dividend or profits in the guise of c…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 775/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…ive paid to other employees has also been allowed as deduction. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for assessee supported the order by relying of the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v DCIT – 341 ITR 563 (Del) and Controls & Switchgear Contractors Ltd. v. DCIT – 269 CTR 44 (Del). 11. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, we notice that Hon’ble Court in the case of Controls & Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “7. The next aspect that has to be considered is whether payment of such commissions are liable to be disal…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cb Richard Ellis South Asia Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Gautam Jain and Piyush Kumar Kamal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)(ii)

…ive paid to other employees has also been allowed as deduction. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for assessee supported the order by relying of the judgments of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v DCIT – 341 ITR 563 (Del) and Controls & Switchgear Contractors Ltd. v. DCIT – 269 CTR 44 (Del). 11. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments, we notice that Hon’ble Court in the case of Controls & Switchgear Contractors Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “7. The next aspect that has to be considered is whether payment of such commissions are liable to be disal…

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and those of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the manner as indicated above

ITA 408/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 80I

…of the business of the assessee or its was not linked with the services rendered by the recipient directors of the company. This contention also gets strength from the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of AMD Met Plast P. Ltd Vs. DCIT 341 ITR 563 [Del.]. In that view of the matter, we are unable to see any perversity, ambiguity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. Thus we uphold the same. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. ITA Nos. 408 to 410 & 545 to 547 M/s Sara Services & Engineers P. Ltd Grounds raised by the ass…

V.S. International P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1581/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 1581/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. V.S. International The Acit-4(3), Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. 237, Sardar Griha Bldg., 198, Lokmanya Tilak Road, Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 7292C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Aarti Vissanji ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Vivek Batra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :07.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :11.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Batra
Section 36(1)(ii)

…the directors. It cannot, therefore, be said that the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. The issue has been considered by this court in AMD Metplast P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2012] 341 ITR 563 (Delhi) in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 647 (Bom). It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the Revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their terms of employ…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Convertech Equpments Pvt. Ltd

ITA/669/2012HC Delhi03 Dec 2012
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(ii)

…ITA 669/2012 & 670/2012 Page 1 of 4 $~27 & 28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 3rd December, 2012 + ITA 669/2012 + ITA 670/2012, C.M. APPL. 20042/2012 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus CONVERTECH EQUPMENTS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Nemo. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) The questions of law sought to be urged by the Revenue in these appeals are as foll…

CIT vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

ITA/911/2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…/201 | & 926/201'l Page t0 of36 I i r 1,6 the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or ' dividend had it not been paid as bonus/cornmission. 20. The issr-re has been considered by this Court in 'AMD Metplast Pvt. I-td vs DCtrT (2012) 341 ITR 563 in;the light of the judgrnent of the Bombay High Court in tr oysl Motqr Service Co. tr-td vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647.It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services renclered and as par1 of their terms of employment I it…

CIT vs. Career Launcher (India) Ltd

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

ITA/926/2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 194CSection 260ASection 36

…l20l | & 926120r I Page l0 of36 t7 ti i It ... the bonus would not have been payable fo the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. ; 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast Pvt Ltd vs DCtrT (2012) 341 ITR 563 inrthe light of the judgrnent of the Bombay High Court rn tr-oyal Motor Service Co" Ltct vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647.Itwas obsen'ed that }he judgrnent of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directprs for services renclered and as part of their terms of employ-.ntlit has…

CIT vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantiaf questions of larry in ITA

ITA - 911 / 2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 260ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…l Page t0 of36 I i r 2012:DHC:9830-DB 1,6 the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or ' dividend had it not been paid as bonus/cornmission. 20. The issr-re has been considered by this Court in 'AMD Metplast Pvt. I-td vs DCtrT (2012) 341 ITR 563 in;the light of the judgrnent of the Bombay High Court in tr oysl Motqr Service Co. tr-td vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647.It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services renclered and as par1 of their terms of employment I it…

CIT vs. Career Launcher (India) Ltd

In the result, the first thlee substantiaf questions of larv in ITA

ITA - 926 / 2011HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 194CSection 260ASection 36

…20r I Page l0 of36 t7 2012:DHC:9829-DB i It ... the bonus would not have been payable fo the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. ; 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast Pvt Ltd vs DCtrT (2012) 341 ITR 563 inrthe light of the judgrnent of the Bombay High Court rn tr-oyal Motor Service Co" Ltct vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647.Itwas obsen'ed that }he judgrnent of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directprs for services renclered and as part of their terms of employ-.ntlit has…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Career Launcher India Ltd

In the result, the first three substantial questions of law in ITA

ITA/939/2010HC Delhi19 Apr 2012
Section 194CSection 260ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…911/2011 & 926/2011 Page 11 of 36 the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647. It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their terms of employment it ha…