9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter called " the assessee "), was engaged in transport business during the assessment year 1970-71 relevant to the accounting period ending January 31, 1970. The assessee claimed that it had paid Rs. 12,000 as salary to Jagmohan Mehra and Rs. 13,200 to Manmohan Mehra, sons of Smt. Bimlawati, director of the assessee company, as they were employed with the assessee company. The Income-tax Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, on further appeal to the Tribunal, after upholding all the findings recorded by the Income-tax Officer on facts, it concluded that salary at the rate of Rs. 750 per month to each of the two persons was quite reasonable and the amount claimed in excess of the said amount was disallowed under section 40(c) of the Act. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the provisions of section 37(2A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The counsel for the parties are agreed that the third question is covered by a Full Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand [1981] 131 ITR 336, in favour of the Department and against the assessee and, therefore, the third question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal about the unreasonableness of the amounts paid to them beyond Rs. 750 per month is based on material available on the record. Accordingly, both these questions are also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. For the reasons recorded above, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
