9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that this issue has been dealt with elaborately/specifically by AO and learned CIT(A), whom he supports. He has also submitted that the main order of this issue has been passed by AO in asst. yr. 1990-91. As against this the learned authorised representative of assessee has relied on his written statement contending that most of the issues are covered in assessee's favour by the order of Tribunal and the same has been mentioned in his written statement. In the written statement of assessee it has been contended that the assessee was director of the company "Shyam Oil Cake Limited" and was paid salary as he was rendering his full services for the purposes of the business of the company. It has been contended that the assessee was looking after the purchases, production, sales and day-to-day administration of the Jaipur unit of the company. He has contended that the assessee was paid salary for his full-time services for the purpose of business to the company and not otherwise. He has contended that the fact of rendering of services by assessee has not been disputed by the AO in the assessment order and also in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company and so the fees received by director is taxable under s. 56 (income from other sources) and not as salary. A perusal of assessment order shows that the AO has not disputed the rendering of services by assessee to the company. The record also reveals that the assessee is receiving remuneration not because of his shareholding but it is because of the services being rendered by assessee to the company. This is authorized under the memorandum and articles of association as also by the resolution. As such considering all the facts and circumstances of the case we find the assessee to be an employee of the company and that he was being paid remuneration for the services the assessee was rendering to the company. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of decision of this Bench in the case of assessee's own brother Shri Shyam Sunder Chhugani, we find that the remuneration received by assessee falls within the category of salary for the reason of the assessee being an employee/servant of the company. That being the situation, the assessee is found to be entitled to deduction under s. 16(i) of the Act out of his remuneration as direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990-91. 13. Ground No. 1 disputes the reduction of addition of Rs. 44,300 to Rs. 20,300 made by AO on account of low household withdrawals. The learned Departmental Representative of the Revenue has referred to para 6 of the assessment order and has relied thereon contending that the assessee's standard of living was quite high, and so the AO rightly estimated the household expenses of the assessee @ Rs. 4,000 p.m. and rightly made the consequent addition. He has contended that the reduction of aforesaid addition by the learned Dy. CIT(A) is not proper. As against this the learned Authorised Representative of assessee has relied on his written statement. In the written statement of assessee it has been contended that the assessee's family consisted of assessee himself, his wife and two children. It has been contended that the assessee was living in the house belonging to the company, and was not paying any rent. It has also been contended that the AO has not given any basis for his estimation for household expenses @ Rs. 4,000 p.m. It has been contended that the learned Dy. CIT(A) has rightly estimated the assessee's household expenses @ Rs. 2,000 p.m. and the same is quite reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as accrued to the two sons of assessee on deposits owned by them and belonging to them, and that the copies of account of deposits with Mahendra Oil Industries, gift deeds and RD account pass book were also furnished in support of assessee's plea. It has also been contended that even otherwise, no specific opportunity was provided by AO to assessee before making the said addition. The learned Authorised Representative of assessee has relied on the following decisions: 1. CIT vs. Zafrul Hasan Iraqi (1998) 62 TTJ (Jp) 795. 2. Madholal vs. ITO (1991) 40 TTJ (Jp)(TM) 333. 3. CIT vs. Smt. Durgavati Singh 230 ITR 249 (All)(sic) It has also been contended that this matter is fully covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of assessee's brother Govind Ram Chhugani vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 1267/Jp/94 rendered on 13th Sept., 2002. 17. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case together with the elaborate contentions made in the written statement of assessee, we find the addition in respect of the aforesaid interest income, being in the name of assessee's wife and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... car as taxi in the year. It has been contended that obtaining of permit for plying the car as taxi from RTO is not necessary for running the private car as legally there are two types of cars which are run on hire, firstly, under taxi quota and secondly, private car. It has been contended that even otherwise the matter of non-obtaining of such permit is for the RTO to consider and not for the AO. It has been contended that the AO has not disputed the receipt of income, but has treated the same as income from other sources instead of business income. Reliance has been placed on CIT vs. Dilip Singh Sardar Singh Bagga (1993) 201 ITR 995 (Bom) and CIT vs. Nidish Transport Corporation (1989) 76 CTR (Ker) 221 : (1990) 185 ITR 669 (Ker). It has also been contended that the issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of assessee's brother Shyam Sunder Chhugani. 22. We have considered the rival contentions, as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record, we find that the assessee has shown an income of Rs. 500 from the use of this car as taxi and AO has included the said income of Rs. 500 from the said taxi-car in assessee's total income for the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n directing to AO to allow standard deduction of Rs. 12,000 under s. 16(i) out of director's remuneration. This ground is similar to the ground No. 1 in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92. The facts being identical the ground is covered by our decision rendered above on similar ground in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1991-92 wherein we have upheld the allowing of such standard deduction. We, therefore, follow our above decision on similar ground and accordingly find no fault with the learned CIT(A)'s impugned direction in allowing standard deduction under s. 16(i) out of assessee's salary/remuneration from the company as director thereof. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 28. Ground No. 2 disputes the reduction of Rs. 8,800 out of addition on account of perquisites i.e., free use of house and car of the company The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has relied on the AO's order contending that the valuation of perquisites at Rs. 24,000 and Rs. 4,800, aggregating to Rs. 28,800 as made by the AO was quite reasonable and. therefore, the learned Dy. CIT(A) was not justified in allowing reduction out of addition of above value of perquisites. As against this, the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
