The Tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee held that, it was not the allegation of the Pr. CIT that no or inadequate enquiries were made by the AO. The Pr. CIT had not disputed the fact that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings had enquired into the aspect of remuneration paid to directors u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act. The AO had taken a well-informed decision after considering the submissions on this issue placed on record by the assessee during assessment proceedings. This was not a case where there was an omission on the part of the AO to examine this aspect of disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act at all. The AO had put a specific question during the course of assessment and taken its reply on record. Further, the AO also discussed this aspect as part of the assessment order. So this was not a case where no enquiry had been made by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It was also not the case of the Pr. CIT that the AO failed to apply his mind to the issues on hand or he had omitted to make enquiries altogether or had taken a view which was not legally plausible in the instant facts. There was no error in the order of the AO, no initiation of 263 proceedings by the Principal Commissioner.(AY. 2011-12 to 2014-15)