Tax case petitions dismissed for lack of legal questions. Tribunal upholds decisions on reassessments, salary expenses, and more.

The court dismissed the tax case petitions as no legal questions were found to be involved in the issues raised. The Tribunal's decisions on directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, reassessments under section 147(b), disallowance of salary and maintenance expenses, employer-employee relationship, appointment justification, relationship with the director, and depreciation on a building were upheld based on factual evidence and lack of legal errors.

---

---

Issues:
1. Direction to Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Reassessments under section 147(b) of the Act.
3. Allowability of salary and maintenance expenses paid to an individual.
4. Disallowance of salary and maintenance expenses.
5. Employer-employee relationship and business expenditure.
6. Justification of Tribunal's conclusion on appointment.
7. Relationship of an individual with the director.
8. Allowability of depreciation on a building used for business purposes.

Analysis:

1. The court was petitioned to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to refer certain questions of law for consideration and opinion. The Tribunal found sufficient material to reopen the case under section 147(b) of the Act, and no legal question arose regarding the reopening.

2. The issue of reassessments under section 147(b) was considered, and it was found that there was enough material evidence to support the reopening of the case. The Tribunal's decision on this matter was upheld as no legal question was identified.

3. The case involved the question of the allowability of salary and maintenance expenses paid to an individual. The individual in question was appointed but never actually worked for the company, being sent abroad for studies. The Tribunal found that the expenditure towards this individual was rightly disallowed based on the lack of evidence of actual service.

4. The Tribunal's decision to disallow the salary and maintenance expenses paid to the individual was based on factual findings and materials on record. The lack of an agreement or indemnity bond, coupled with the individual not serving in the company, supported the disallowance. The court upheld this decision as it was based on factual evidence.

5. The Tribunal's conclusion regarding the employer-employee relationship and the business expenditure was based on the individual not rendering any service to the company. The lack of evidence of work post-studies further supported the decision to disallow the expenses.

6. The Tribunal's conclusion on the appointment of the individual was found to be based on factual evidence and not on wrong assumptions or ignorance of material evidence. The decision was upheld as being supported by the records.

7. The relationship of the individual with the director was examined, and it was found that the individual was not considered a relative of the director as per the relevant sections of the Act. This finding was accepted by the Department, and no legal question arose on this matter.

8. The issue of depreciation on a building used for business purposes was discussed, and the Tribunal found that depreciation was not allowable under section 37(4) due to an amendment with retrospective effect. The court held that this question need not be answered in light of the legislative change.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the tax case petitions as no legal questions were found to be involved in the issues raised.

---