Case Law Details
Dalal Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai – Special Bench)- Provisions of section 36(1)(ii) will apply in case of all employees including share holder employees irrespective of the fact whether any extra services have been rendered or not. The issue whether payment of bonus or commission to an employee will be covered by the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) or section 37(1) is also settled by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Subodh Chandra Poppatlal vs. CIT (24 ITR 586) in which the Hon’ble High Court while dealing with similar provisions of the old Act held that when an expenditure fell under section 10(2)(x) [which corresponds to section 36(1)(ii)], in the sense that it is an expenditure in the nature of bonus or commission paid to an employee for services rendered then its validity can only be determined by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(x) and not by the tests laid down in section 10(2)(xv) which corresponds to section 37(1). Respectively following the said judgment, we hold that the payment of commission to the three director employees had been rightly considered by the authorities below under the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) and that the provisions of section 37(1) will not be applicable in such cases.It was also held that that the payment of commission of Rs.1.20 crores to the three working directors was in lieu of dividend and the same is not allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(ii).
MUMBAI “D” BENCH, – SPECIAL BENCH
I.T.A. No.5792/MUM/2009 Assessment Year: 2006-07
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
…unique but novel land mark; next only to the extreme stance as pressed for by the Revenue in the by- now- most talked about case – Vodafone – which according to the Revenue itself, was a daring adventure by way of ‘testing fresh waters’.
“…Therefore, in our view, the judgment cited above cannot be applied to a case where a device is adopted by closely held private companies to distribute dividend in the garb of commission in such a manner to take advantage of judgment in the case of Loyal Motor Service Company Ltd. (supra).”
This sums up the view of the ITAT handed down against the assessee. On the first blush, but even after a repeated reading of section 36(1)(ii), the rationale behind the said view can only be regarded as mindboggling or brain teasing. Be that as it may,the stance of the Revenue undoubtedly juts out; is most likely bound to go down in the annals of Indian jurisprudence a uniq