issue pertains to disallowance of payments made by the respondent - assessee to Shri Faraz G. Joshi in the form of salary / perquisites. AO noted thatsearchaction was also carried out in the residential premises of Shri Faraz G. Joshi who claimed to be one of the Directors of the respondent - assessee. Statement of Shri Faraz Joshi was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. According to the assessing officer, Shri Joshi was not attending the office of the respondent - assessee for the last six years and no duties were assigned to him except some consultation. Moreover, respondent - assessee failed to provide any details regarding the nature and character of consultation. Accordingly, assessing officer held that payments made to Shri Joshi in the form of salary / perquisites was not expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the respondent - assessee. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 3,00,00,000.00 claimed as paid to Shri Joshi as salary / perquisites was disallowed being not expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the respondent - assess it is for the assessee to decide whether any expenditure should be incurred in the course of his or its business. Such expenditure may be incurred voluntarily and without any necessity as decided by Supreme Court in thecaseofSassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 118 ITR In the light of the above, we do not find that question Nos.1 to 4 as proposed by the Revenue raise any substantial question for consideration of the Court. Consequently, the said questions are not admitted for adjudication.