Assessee, a charitable institute, had incurred advertisement expenses pertaining to advertisement work that which  handled by Red Eye Media Pvt Ltd (REM))  a related party and a specified person, falling within meaning of section 13(3).  Assessing Officer  held that REM was charging substantially higher amounts on every bill, disallowed 15 per cent of total amount of advertisement expenses paid by assessee-society to REM. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On appeal the Tribunal held that    REM being agent of newspaper company received a discount of 15 per cent from newspaper company on bill amount. Further, REM had charged assessee-society for advertisements in newspaper, same rates which were fixed by newspaper company.  Since discount of 15 per cent was received by REM from newspaper company on bill amount in its capacity as that of an agent of newspaper company, same, could not have any bearing on determining reasonableness of charges that were borne by assessee-society for advertisements in newspapers carried out through aforesaid specified person. Since REM had not availed any profit from assessee-society, Commissioner (Appeals) is  justified in deleting addition made by Assessing Officer on account of excess payment made to REM.  As regards  addition on account of brokerage and commission expenses incurred by assessee without giving any cogent reason and without examining documentary evidence supporting assessee’s claim of aforesaid expenditure, matter is  restored to Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. Held that prior to section 11(6) made available on statute with effect from assessment year 2015-16, assessee was entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 on assets whose cost had been allowed as application for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a). (AY. 2013-14 to 2015-16)