being in the sentence

Dear andriii,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, this presents a complicated situation. First of all, the GMAT SC is NOT simply a test of grammar; instead, grammar and logic and rhetoric are all equally important. On the GMAT SC, many wrong answers are 100% grammatically correct but rhetorically or logically flawed.

What you have written is a sentence in which I think you intend to ask a grammar question, but the sentence has numerous rhetorical problems. This is absolutely not how a well-spoken native speaker would convey this information, and therefore, regardless of the "being" issue, this never would be the correct answer on a GMAT SC question.

The problem with "being" is that it is seldom 100% grammatically wrong, but it is often rhetorically flawed: it is not the most concise or most direct or most powerful way to express the information. If I were going to re-write the information in this sentence, I would not use "being" at all. For example, this version is considerably closer to what could be a correct answer on the GMAT SC:
The permanent advisory of C-Holding, with Mr. John Jameson as Chairman of the Board Council, has provided substantial benefits to A-Company.
That's a direct, powerful version that conveys similar information. That sounds more like a GMAT SC correct answer. In this context, "as" is a far more natural choice than "being," when describing a person's professional role: with [name] as [role].

You see, part of the paradox here is that you are trying to ask a sophisticated rhetorical question, but this example sentence doesn't indicate that you have a similarly sophisticated understanding of rhetorical construction. I suggest it might be counterproductive for you to provide your own example sentences. I would recommend searching GMAT questions (official, or MGMAT, or Magoosh) or searching sentences in high quality publications (e.g. NYT, WSJ, the Economist magazine, etc.) I realize that's more work, but then you can focus on the specific issue on which you want to focus, without introducing other extraneous issues.

Does all this make sense?
Mike