Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 39 - AT - Income TaxEligibility for exemption under S.11 denied - excess salary paid to Shri Navneet Chabra,Executive Director as during the year - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held that:- As can be seen from the material placed on record, total salary paid in the initial year of appointment to Shri Chabra is ₹ 10,80,000 and not ₹ 7,20,000 as noted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, compared to the salary paid in the initial year of appointment of ₹ 10,80,000, the salary paid to Shri Chapbra in the year under consideration of ₹ 14,51,226 cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable, so as to bring it within the purview of S.13(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has not mentioned any valid reason in the assessment order to indicate that the salary paid to the Executive Director is not commensurate with the responsibilities/duties performed by him. Therefore, there being no material brought on record by the Assessing Officer to indicate that the salary paid is unreasonable or excessive, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A).- Decided against revenue. Violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules - Held that:- It is a fact on record that assessment for the assessment year 2008-099 has been completed by the Assessing Officer under S.143(3). It is also not disputed that the assessee, being a society registered under S.12A of the Act, is obliged and duty bound to file its return of income for each assessment year. Therefore, it cannot be said that information relating to the payment of salary in the initial assessment year in which the Executive Director was appointed, was not before the Assessing Officer. Moreover, when the Assessing Officer is aware of the basic salary paid to the executive Director, it is highly surprising and appears to be quite improbable that he is not aware of the other allowances paid alongwith the basic pay. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative that provisions of Rule 46A have been violated - Decided against revenue.
|