9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O brought nothing on record to show that either of the facilities provided to her was used for personal purposes. The facilities were the basic facilities necessary for management and administration of the institution as Principal and the Chairman. Further, the AO has brought nothing on record to show that the expenditure on salary or facilities provided to her was excessive having regard to fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stified in allowing the assessee to have benefit of Section 11 of the Act, 1961 as there was clear infringement by the assessee of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. 3. However, on perusal of the impugned order, we find that ITAT has given cogent reasons for rejection of the revenue appeal. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:- "5. Ground No.1 is regarding deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Chairman. Further, the AO has brought nothing on record to show that the expenditure on salary or facilities provided to her was excessive having regard to fair market value of services provided by her. On the other hand, the assessee showed that she owned a car of her own and mobile telephone for personal use and, thus, there was no personal use of the car and telephone provided to her. Before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services provided by him. Therefore, it was held that no benefit was provided to him also so as to lead to infringement of provision contained in Section 13(1)(c). In this case also, the ld. DR has not been able to bring any evidence or argument that the salary paid was excessive having regard to the services provided by him. Therefore, as in the case of Mrs. Bharti Pandey, we have no reason to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assets of the society for benefit of persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act, 1961, is essentially a question of fact. Since both the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) and ITAT have given cogent reasons for concluding that money paid by the assessee was for the services provided and the amount paid was not excessive, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
