9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 48X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erty and interest. It also had some agricultural income. In the course of the assessment proceedings for the asst. yr. 1976-77, the assessee family claimed to have paid a salary of Rs. 6,000 to its Karta viz. Jayaram Mohapatra in consideration of the services rendered by the Karta in looking after the business affairs of the assessee family. The ITO did not allow this claim without assigning any r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In this further appeal before us, Sri D.C. Roy, the learned representative for the assessee, urged that the decisions of the authorities below were not justified. He stated that the ITO himself has allowed the claim for such salary in the subsequent Asst. yr. 1977-78. Further, relying on the decision in the case of S.A.P. Annamalai (1), he stated that the amount was admissible. He explained that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , supported the orders of the authorities below. He stated that the assessment was completed under s. 143 (1) in the subsequent year, 1977-78, by the ITO. 4. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties as well as the facts on record. In our opinion, the contentions raised for the assessee carry force. As has been held in the case of S.A.P. Annamalai (1) the remuneration, pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. We also find that the Karta rendered services to the assessee-family in looking after the business of the latter. A sum of Rs. 500 per month cannot, in our opinion, be said to be excessive or unreasonable considering the share income of the assessee-family and the efforts put in by the Karta to manage the affairs of the family. Respectfully following the decision in the case of the S.A.P. Annam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
