TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case the CIT(A) was right in law in deleting addition of Rs. 14,64,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive payment made to persons specified in section 13(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the observation of Ld. ITAT in earlier years that salary paid to office bearer of the Trust was excessive." 2) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 14,64,000 despite the assessee owning and running a fleet of luxurious cars in contravention of section 13(l)(c)(ii) read with section 13(2)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961." 3) "Whether on facts and circumstances of the case & in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating income of Rs. 1,98,42,500/- as e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f ITAT in earlier years that salary paid to the office bearer of the trust was excessive. The DR further contended that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the above addition by ignoring the important fact that the assessee was owning and running a fleet of luxurious cars in contravention of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Apropos ground no.3, ld. DR vehemently contended that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in treating the income of Rs. 1,88,42,500/- as exemption u/s 11 of the Act despite the assessee trust having contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r/w section 13(2)(c) of the Act. 6. Ld. DR has drawn our attention towards assessment order and submitted that the ITAT in its order in assessee's own case for AY 2006-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 12A of the Act as per certificate dated 15.07.1996 filed at page 13 of the paper book. There is also no dispute to the fact that the appellant has claimed exemption of its income under section 11 (1)( a) of the Act. The main reason assigned by the AO while denying the claim of exemption is that the appellant has provided salary to the office bearers resulting into contravention of the provisions of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. The identical issues were also involved in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2008-09, wherein the AO disallowed claim of salary paid to same three office bearers of the appellant society to the extent of Rs. 14,64,000 /- and assessed the appellant in the status of an AOP. The appellant claimed similar salary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the AO did not make any disallowance in AY 2007-08 in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2009. The CIT(A) further observed that keeping in view the fact that the entire salary paid to the three office bearers was allowed by the AO in AY 2007-08, the CIT(A) did not uphold the disallowance made by the AO in AY 2008-09 on this issue. In this situation, we are in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) that the AO was not justified in disallowing 2/3rd of the expenditure incurred in the remuneration of the four persons u/s 40A(ii)(b) of the Act. On this issue, we are unable to see any infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and conclusion of the CIT(A) is upheld. 10. From para 6 of the impugned order a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer has allowed the total salary paid to Mr. Joseph John and the salary was @ Rs. 55,000 per month. We further find that in this year, Assessing Officer has independently not brought any evidence which can show how much salary a person having qualification equivalent to Mr. Joseph John could fetch in the open market. What are the rates of salary paid by other institution to a person who is teaching as well as managing the school. We have noticed the duties performed by Shri Joseph John. Assessing Officer is harboring upon the evidence collected by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2003-04. He has made reference to the salary of the staff in those years. With effect from 01.01.2006, Government of India has notified the 6th Pay....