Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2015 (5) TMI 581 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal overturns disallowance of director remuneration, ruling in favor of assessee The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the disallowance of Rs. 14,93,657/- imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal overturns disallowance of director remuneration, ruling in favor of assessee

                            The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, overturning the disallowance of Rs. 14,93,657/- imposed by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the remuneration paid to the Directors was justified based on their qualifications and previous salaries, and there was no evidence to support the restriction to 20% of receipts. The Tribunal concluded that the disallowance was not justified and deleted the same, ruling in favor of the assessee.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Disallowance of Rs. 14,93,657/- by restricting the remuneration to 20% of gross receipts.
                            2. Invocation of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                            3. Consideration of legitimate business needs and qualifications of the Directors.
                            4. Confirmation of the order by the CIT(A) without considering the submissions and documents produced.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Disallowance of Rs. 14,93,657/- by restricting the remuneration to 20% of gross receipts:
                            The assessee's appeal contested the disallowance of Rs. 14,93,657/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by restricting the remuneration paid to the Directors to 20% of the gross receipts. The AO observed that the salary paid to the Directors was 56.57% of the total salary expenses and 44.60% of the total receipts of Rs. 60,71,967/-. The AO deemed this ratio unreasonable and excessive, restricting the remuneration to 20% of the receipts, thereby allowing only Rs. 12,14,393/- and disallowing the remaining Rs. 14,93,657/-.

                            2. Invocation of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
                            The AO invoked Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with excessive or unreasonable payments to related parties. The AO justified the disallowance by stating that the remuneration paid to the Directors was excessive given the company's loss-making status and the ratio of remuneration to total income. However, the assessee argued that the remuneration was justified based on the Directors' previous higher salaries and their qualifications and experience.

                            3. Consideration of legitimate business needs and qualifications of the Directors:
                            The assessee provided detailed qualifications and previous employment details of the two Directors, Ms. Dilpreet Singh and Mr. Prakash Tripathi, to justify the remuneration. Ms. Singh, a Chartered Accountant and CPA, previously earned Rs. 29,54,990/- at Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd., while Mr. Tripathi, a Commerce Graduate with extensive experience, earned Rs. 13,02,471/- at Desert Artisans Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. The assessee argued that the remuneration was not excessive considering their qualifications and contributions to the company's growth, as evidenced by the increase in turnover in subsequent years.

                            4. Confirmation of the order by the CIT(A) without considering the submissions and documents produced:
                            The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's disallowance, stating that the remuneration did not satisfy the test of human probability given the company's loss-making status. The CIT(A) emphasized that the remuneration should be reasonable with the business needs and not simply to defraud revenue. However, the assessee contended that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the detailed submissions and documents provided, which demonstrated the legitimacy and reasonableness of the remuneration.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions and material on record, found that the Directors were well-qualified and their remuneration was not excessive given their previous salaries and contributions to the company's growth. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide a basis for restricting the remuneration to 20% of the receipts and had not substantiated how the remuneration was excessive. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not justified and deleted the disallowance, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

                            Result:
                            The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the decision was pronounced in the open Court on 17th April, 2015.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found