2015 (5) TMI 265

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....especially when there was a revenue audit objection? 2) Whether it is proper for the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal of the department on the ground that CBDT Circular No.3 of 2011 dated 9.2.2011 in paragraph 8 clearly mention the exception which was not considered while dismissing the appeal? 3) Whether the sitting fee amount of Rs. 2,52,000/= being the excess remuneration paid to the Director over and above the limits prescribed under the Companies Act are allowable? 4) Whether as per Section 198 r/w 309 and Schedule XIII of the Companies Act which prescribes limit for paying remuneration by way of salary is to be followed or assessee is entitled to more than the limits prescribed therein? 5) Whether in Schedule XIII of the Companies A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s order, has categorically held that even if the reopening is held to be valid, the addition effected by the Assessing Officer is only Rs. 2,52,000/=, which is much less than Rs. 3 Lakhs and the tax component is well below Rs. 2 Lakhs and, placing reliance upon CBDT Circular No.3 of 2008 dated 9.2.11, held that the appeal is not maintainable.  For better clarity, para-2 of the order passed by the Tribunal, is extracted hereinbelow :-                2. It is clear from the grounds itself that even if the reopening is held to be valid, the addition effected by the A.O. being only Rs. 2,52,000/= the tax effect is much less than Rs. 3 Lakhs and even well below Rs. 2 Lak....