IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                (DELHI BENCH `C ', NEW DELHI)

       BEFORE SHRI R. P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
            SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                       I.T.A. No.5518 /Del/2013
                       Assessment year : 2010-11
DCIT, Circle 12(1),                Vs. Hero Fin Corp Ltd.,
New Delhi                                 34, Community Centre,
GIR / PAN:AAACH157J                       Vasant Lok, New Delhi
         (Appellant)                      (Respondent)

             Appellant by :     Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR
             Respondent by :    Shri Ajay Vohra, Ms. Priyanka Jain, Adv.

                                       ORDER
PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM:
      This appeal is filed by the Revenue against order of Ld. CIT(A) ­ XV,
New Delhi dated 23rd July 2013 for the assessment year 2010-11. The only
issue raised in this appeal is regarding grievance of the Revenue by which
Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the commission payable to Director u/s 36(1)(ii) of
the Act.






2.    At the outset, Ld. A.R. submitted that this issue is covered in favour
of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself
wherein, the commission was paid to the same Director and the Tribunal had
decided the issue in its favour. In this respect, our attention was invited to
the paper book pages 12-13 where a copy of the order of the Tribunal in
I.T.A.No. 4329/Del/2010 pronounced on 27th April 2012 was placed. Our
attention was invited to the relevant para 25 of the said order wherein the
Tribunal had dealt with the issue. Our attention was also invited to the paper
book pages 1-7 wherein ITAT had followed the order of Tribunal in
                                        2                ITA No5518/Del/2013


I.T.A.No. 4329/Del/2010 dated 27.04.2012. It was submitted that since the
issue involved is similar, therefore, it is a covered mater.

3.    Ld. D.R. fairly conceded with the contention of the Ld. A.R.

4.    We have heard rival parties and have gone through the material on
record.   We find that the issue is regarding payment of commission
amounting to Rs.24 lacs to Smt. Renu Munjal, director of the company. The
Assessing Officer had made disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Act. However,
we observe that ITAT had given relief to the assessee on similar issue in
assessment year 2005-06, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Since the issue is
similar, respectfully following the order of the tribunal in I.T.A.No.
4329/Del/2010 dated 27th April 2012, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.






5.    In view of the above, appeal filed by ht Revenue is dismissed.

6.    Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2014.
      Sd./-                                                          Sd./-
 (R. P. TOLANI )                               (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date: June, 2014
Sp
Copy forwarded to:-
   1. The appellant
   2. The respondent
   3. The CIT
   4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
   5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
                                                    By Order


                                                               (ITAT, New Delhi).
                                 3   ITA No5518/Del/2013




Date of hearing

Date of Dictation

Date of Typing

Date of order signed by
both the Members &
pronouncement.

Date of order uploaded on net
& sent to the Bench concerned.