TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 80VV is vitiated as the Tribunal had failed to take into account that both of them have represented the assessee in income-tax proceedings?" - payment was made to Dr. R.C. Vaish and Sri Atma Ram Agarwal as retainers for giving opinion on company law matters and not for income-tax proceedings and the payment made for income-tax matters was below the permissible limit of Rs. 5,000 which has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d failed to take into account that both of them have represented the assessee in income-tax proceedings?" Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows: The present reference relates to the assessment year 1977-78. For the assessment year in question the respondent had claimed a deduction of Rs. 14,615 being legal expenses. While framing the assessment under sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company law affairs. It was argued that this payment of Rs. 7,000 cannot be subjected to the provisions of section 80VV because these are not for purposes of any proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961, before any authority. 4.3 The aim of retaining two counsel is to seek advice in respect of company law matters. Such being the position if some advice in respect of income-tax matters is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is misconceived as the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had found that the payment was made to Dr. R.C. Vaish and Sri Atma Ram Agarwal as retainers for giving opinion on company law matters and not for income-tax proceedings and the payment made for income-tax matters was below the permissible limit of Rs. 5,000 which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion that the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
