9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The judgment involves the following issues: 1. Whether there was a relationship of employer and employee between M/s Allen Career Institute and the assessee, and if the receipt from the institute should be treated as professional receipts instead of salary. 2. Whether the claim of Rs. 3,18,328 under section 37(1) as professional expenditure should be allowed.
Issue 1: The dispute revolved around whether the assessee was an employee or a professional with M/s Allen Career Institute. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the assessee's prior employment at Central Academy School and private tuition activities before joining the institute. The AO concluded that the assessee wrongly claimed income as professional instead of salary. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, considering the terms of the contract between the assessee and the institute. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the nature of payment and tax deductions indicated an employer-employee relationship. The Authorised Representative defended the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the nature of payment, professional registration, and past assessments as a professional. After evaluating the arguments, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the terms of the agreement, the nature of services provided, and the absence of typical employee benefits, concluding that the receipt was professional income. Issue 2: The second issue pertained to the claim of Rs. 3,18,328 under section 37(1) as professional expenditure. The CIT(A) had allowed this claim based on the assessee's professional income. The Tribunal acknowledged the validity of the claim in principle but directed the AO to verify the correctness of the claimed expenditure amount. The Tribunal partially allowed this ground, subject to the AO's verification of the expenditure's accuracy based on the available record. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed. Separate Judgment: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
|
