9911796707
TMI Blog1951 (6) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of business." In considering the question referred to this Court for decision it has to be borne in mind that the claim of the assessee being a claim for exemption of an amount under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connection is on the assessee. Authority for this proposition is to be found in Commissioner of Income- tax, West Bengal v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 I.T.R. 191; A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 108. In that case Kania, C.J., said:- "Now it is clear that this being a claim for exemption of an amount, contended to be an expenditure falling under Section 10(2) (xv), the burden of proving the necessary facts in that connec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner refused to allow more Than ₹ 1,600 per mensem each. For the 1946-47 assessment the Income-tax Officer found that the salaries of ₹ 1,600 per mensem in the case of Miss Florence Hotz and Mr. Edwin were fair, but that Mr. Robert Hotz, who was not provided with free board and lodging, was to be paid ₹ 2,000 per mensem. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed the order of the Income-tax Officer. For the 1947-48 assessment the same question came up for determination. This time, however, the Income-tax Officer allowed the full claim in respect of the salaries paid to Mr. Robert Hotz, Miss Florence Hotz and Mr. Edwin Hotz. The Income-tax Department did not appeal from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... z and Edwin Hotz during the year 1944-45 and 1945-46 was not at all justified by business considerations and the Income-tax authorities were perfectly justified in cutting down the increase of ₹ 800 per month to half and allowing only an increase of ₹ 400 per month in their case." From what was said by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal it appears that the Tribunal did not allow ₹ 2,000 in the case of Miss Florence Hotz and Mr. Edwin Hotz for the reasons specified hereunder:- (1) that no particular reason was given for the increase by the assessee; (2) that Miss Florence Hotz and Mr. Edwin Hotz were not called upon to render any service in addition to what they had been rendering in the past; (3) that the reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
