9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (7) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the asst. yr. 1973-74, there is another dispute that the AAC wrongly directed the ITO to allow necessary relief under s. 80-J of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Shri Harmukh Rai Modi was paid managerial remuneration amounting to Rs. 93,878, Rs. 1,23,858 and Rs. 81,492 for the three years respectively. These remunerations included salary @ Rs. 2,000 per month and commission @ 4 per cent of the net profit of the company. Except for the asst. yr. 1972-73 for which year the AAC has recorded the payments of remunerations to Harmukh Rai modi, we have been able to ascertain the figures of remunerations from the disallowances made by the ITO in the assessment orders. Neither for the Revenue nor for the assessee, particulars in this regard were furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble into money or not) to an employee or incurs directly or indirectly any expenditure or is entitled to any allowance in respect of any assets of the assessee used by an employee either wholly or partly for his own purposes or benefit. then, subject to the provisions of cl. (b), so much of such expenditure or allowance as is in excess of the limit specified in respect thereof in cl. (c) shall not be allowed as a deduction: Provided that where the assessee is a company, so much of the aggregate of: (a) the expenditure and allowance referred to in sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of this clause; and (b) the expenditure and allowance referred to in sub-cls. (i) and (ii) of cl. (c) of s. 40. in respect of an employee or a former employee, being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf with the question whether Harmukh Rai Modi was an employee or an agent of the assessee company. For the respondent Shri G.C. Sharma accepted that for the purpose of these appeals, Harmukh Rai Modi had been accepted by the assessee company to be its employee. For the Revenue, Miss R.K. Chahal submitted that the ITO was justified in restricting the claim in respect of payment to Harmukh Rai Modi at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month. She, however, could not convince us as to how the AAC's order on the point of s. 40A(5)(a) is erroneous. For the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1974-75, there is no other dispute other than the relief given by the AAC. on s. 40A(5)(a). 6. Coming to the dispute regarding relief under s. 80-J of the Act which is peculia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
