9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L J.-The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following two questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 : "1. Whether the remuneration as was originally paid, Rs. 1,56,901, as per orders then existing is allowable or the remuneration which was restricted by a subsequent order dated Octo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer came to the conclusion that, since the remuneration paid was in excess of the permissible maximum limit, the same was disallowed and more so in accordance with the order of the Company Law Board, the deduction has to be made only to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000. At the stage of the Tribunal, a question was raised as to whether the provisions of section 40(c) are applicable to examine as to whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was made applicable for the assessment year in question and the company itself has recovered the said amount from the directors, which was in excess of the maximum remuneration permitted by the Company Law Board. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer was justified in restricting the deductible expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000. Regarding the fresh ground, which was taken for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in it has been held that the Departmental authorities would be under a duty to consider the claim even on alternative grounds. This court in Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 381 and in CIT v. Delhi Sanitary Stores [1981] 127 ITR 822, have also taken the view that new questions can be raised before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
