TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal deems disallowance of director's daughter's remuneration unjustified</h1> <h3>M/s. VLCC Health Care (P) Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range 17, New Delhi.</h3> M/s. VLCC Health Care (P) Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT, Range 17, New Delhi. - TMI Issues:Disallowance of remuneration paid to director's daughter under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The judgment revolves around the challenge by M/s. VLCC Health Care (P) Ltd. against the disallowance of an amount of &8377; 6,73,933, being 35% of the remuneration paid to Ms. Pallavi Luthra, daughter of one of the directors of the assessee, under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the disallowance should be deleted as the Assessing Officer (AO) had ignored the qualifications and responsibilities of Ms. Pallavi Luthra in the business. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance partially, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.Upon review, the Tribunal observed that neither the AO nor the CIT (A) disputed the qualifications and duties assigned to Ms. Pallavi Luthra by the company. It was noted that no comparable case was examined to assess her functional profile. The Tribunal found it perplexing that while 65% of the remuneration paid to Ms. Pallavi Luthra was accepted, the disallowance of 35% was solely based on conjectures and surmises, lacking substantial evidence.Furthermore, it was highlighted that Ms. Pallavi Luthra's role as a director in another company with nil profits was used as a basis for disallowance, despite her being a whole-time director in the assessee company and receiving remuneration for her work. The Tribunal concluded that invoking section 40A(2)(b) based on conjectures without questioning the genuineness of services rendered was unwarranted. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of 35% of the remuneration to Ms. Pallavi Luthra was unjustified and ordered it to be deleted, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision provided a detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances, emphasizing the importance of substantiated evidence over conjectures in matters of disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.---
TaxTMI 