Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Metal Seam Company (P) Ltd
[Citation -2017-LL-0905-1]

Citation 2017-LL-0905-1
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow
Respondent Name Metal Seam Company (P) Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/09/2017
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags question of law
Bot Summary: Substantial question of law formulated in this appeal reads as under: a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,01,73,968/- made on account of disallowance of excessive payment made to the Directions of the Company under the provision of Section 40A ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce any details or evidence to show that some extraordinary or exemplary work done by the Directors during the year under consideration to justify the excessive payment. We find that this question is nothing, but question of fact, which has been considered by Tribunal and decided against appellant recording its finding in favour of Assessee by confirming with order passed by Commissioner Income Tax. Since there is a concurrent finding of facts, we do not find that any substantial questions of law has arisen.


Court No. - 3 Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 29 of 2017 Appellant :- Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-II, Lucknow Respondent :- M/S Metal Seam Company (P) Ltd., Lucknow Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Mathur Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J. 1. Heard Sri Alok Mathur, learned Counsel for appellant. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1961) has arisen from judgment and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Income Tax Appeal No. 372/LKW/2016. 3. Substantial question of law formulated in this appeal reads as under: "a) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting addition of Rs. 1,01,73,968/- made on account of disallowance of excessive payment made to Directions of Company under provision of Section 40A (2) (a) ignoring fact that assessee failed to produce any details or evidence to show that some extraordinary or exemplary work done by Directors during year under consideration to justify excessive payment." 4. We find that this question is nothing, but question of fact, which has been considered by Tribunal and decided against appellant recording its finding in favour of Assessee by confirming with order passed by Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals). 5. Since there is concurrent finding of facts, we do not find that any substantial questions of law has arisen. 2 6. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.9.2017 Arvind Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Metal Seam Company (P) Ltd
Report Error