TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing two questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the assessment year 1976-77 : "1. Whether the remuneration as was originally paid, Rs. 1,56,901, as per orders then existing is allowable or the remuneration which was restricted by a subsequent order dated October 29, 1976, to Rs. 1,20,000 is to be allowed as an e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion paid was in excess of the permissible maximum limit, the same was disallowed and more so in accordance with the order of the Company Law Board, the deduction has to be made only to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000. At the stage of the Tribunal, a question was raised as to whether the provisions of section 40(c) are applicable to examine as to whether the remuneration paid is excessive or not. The I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion and the company itself has recovered the said amount from the directors, which was in excess of the maximum remuneration permitted by the Company Law Board. In these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer was justified in restricting the deductible expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,20,000. Regarding the fresh ground, which was taken for the first time before the Tribunal, we find that, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies would be under a duty to consider the claim even on alternative grounds. This court in Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 381 and in CIT v. Delhi Sanitary Stores [1981] 127 ITR 822, have also taken the view that new questions can be raised before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the questions with regard to the applicabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
