9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been subject to any tax deduction at source, which would normally the position if the payments were in the nature of salary. Thirdly, there is no material to suggest that any Board of Director’s resolution was available permitting the company to pay salary to the assessee -director. In fact, before the CIT(A) assessee referred to a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the company dated 25/04/2011, which approved the salary payment to the assessee-director for the financial year 2011-12, which corresponds to the next assessment year. In this manner, assessee sought to point out that so far as instant year is concerned, there is no resolution of the Board of directors of the company authorizing the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 21/06/2010 to 21/03/2011 and then the amount was reversed. In the assessment order, it is noted by the Assessing Officer that on being show-caused, the representative of the assessee submitted that the amounts were received towards salary, but since the company did not have adequate profits, such payments were reversed on 21/03/2011. The Assessing Officer noted that out of the total amount of ₹ 16,09,472/-, a sum of ₹ 8,300/- was an expense incurred on behalf of the company and a sum of ₹ 23,622/- was payment received towards telephone. The Assessing Officer excluded the sum of ₹ 8,300/- and treated the sum of ₹ 23,622/- as perquisite under section 17(2)(iv) of the Act and the balance ₹ 15,77,550/- a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 dealing with the managerial remuneration to the Directors, etc. 4.1 At the time of hearing, it has been pointed out that in the last year also, similar payments were made by the company to the assessee, but the Assessing Officer has not considered it as salaries and referred to the bank statement in this regard, copy of which is placed at pages 54 of the Paper Book. In sum and substance, the plea of the assessee is that the characterization of the impugned amount has been understood by the company and the assessee as a temporary loan/advance and the same cannot be tinkered with by the Assessing Officer without any cogent reason and evidence. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay salary to the assessee -director. In fact, before the CIT(A) assessee referred to a resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the company dated 25/04/2011, which approved the salary payment to the assessee-director for the financial year 2011-12, which corresponds to the next assessment year. In this manner, assessee sought to point out that so far as instant year is concerned, there is no resolution of the Board of directors of the company authorizing the payment of salary to the assessee-director. The aforesaid explanation of the assessee has been unjustly brushed-aside by the CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Ld. Representative for the assessee explained that no doubt, the representative of the assessee had furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
