9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ?" Question No. 1, in the negative. Question No. 2, in the negative. Question No. 3, in the affirmative - - - - - Dated:- 18-5-1972 - Judge(s) : HARI SWARUP., R. L. GULATI. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by GULATI J.-In compliance with the order of this court under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has submitted a statement of the case and has referred the following three questions for our opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case any part of the sum of Rs. 2,000 paid remuneration to Sri Satyandrajit Singh was liable to be disallowed under section 10(4A) of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal, however, found that having regard to all the circumstances, it was legitimate for the assessee-company to have appointed another joint managing director.The Tribunal has also found that after the appointment of the third director, the business of the company improved. The remuneration of this additional director was fixed by the company at Rs. 200 to begin with, but later on it was raised to Rs. 500 per month to bring it at par with the salaries drawn by other joint managing directors. On this finding it cannot be said that the appointment of the third director or the salary paid to him was unjustified. Section 10(4A) no doubt gives a power to the Income-tax Officer as also to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to disallow an expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ockery and linen. But the expenditure incurred on such items is allowed as a deduction by way of replacement. It is, therefore, not expected that an assessee engaged in a hotel business would purchase crockery and linen in excess of its needs. The replacement need not be exactly the same every year. From the nature of things it is bound to vary depending on the actual loss by way of breakage and pilferage, etc. The claim does not appear to be excessive particularly having regard to the fact that a similar claim in respect of the succeeding year has been allowed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 1 1,000. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no material whatsoever before the Tribunal for disallowing a portion of the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
