1979 (12) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was legally right in confirming the disallowance of the payment of sales tax of Rs. 14,036 pertaining to earlier years? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the commission paid to three employees on the net profit of the firm was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deduction of remuneration is concerned, that was disallowed as the Income-tax Officer held that the remuneration paid was excessive, considering the fact that these employees were being paid handsome amounts by way of salary. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed deduction in respect of remuneration at an amount of Rs. 12,050 with the result that the addition under this head was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt year was of no consequence. Thus, the assessee could not lay claim for deduction of sales tax liability for earlier previous years during the relevant previous year. Coming now to the second question, it is undoubtedly true that the amount of remuneration or the salary paid to an employee has to be adjudged from the standpoint of business needs. But this does not give a handle to claim inflat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X