TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n this appeal is against confirmation of disallowance of certain amounts paid to the persons specified in section 13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act'). 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the assessee is a trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, which was granted registration under the Income-tax Act vide order dated 17-01-1981. Main object of the assessee trust is to give medical relief to the patients requiring medical attention and rehabilitation. During the year under consideration, the assessee declared gross receipts amounting to Rs. 4.11 crore, which included receipts from the hospital to the tune of Rs. 3.90 crore. On perusal of details of payments, the Assessing Officer (AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from payments made to Smt. Usha Prayag. The ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is noticed that all the three persons to whom the assessee paid salary etc. are admittedly covered under subsection (3) of section 13. Controversy as to the characterization of the amounts paid to the above three persons as the same being salary or honorarium, was not pressed by the ld. AR in appeal before the Tribunal. Section 11 provides exemption in respect of income from property held for charitable and religious purposes. Section 13 provides that section 11 shall not be applied in certain cases, meanin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve or unreasonable. Under these circumstances, a question arises as to whether the payment made by the assessee to the above referred three persons can be construed as unreasonable? 6. Turning to the facts of the instant case, we find that the assessee gave elaborate submissions justifying the reasonableness of the amount paid to the persons specified u/s.13(3). We have set out in detail the experience of Dr. Shirish Prayag and Dr. Aarti Prayag. The AO has considered a part of the amount paid to Dr. Shirish Prayag as reasonable and treated the entire amount paid to Dr. Aarti Prayag and Smt. Usha Prayag as unreasonable. When we consider the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it emerges that such payments are neither unre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... MBBS and DCP from B.J. Medical College, Pune and working as Senior Pathologist for last 32 years. The remuneration paid to her during the year has been Rs. 50,000/- per month plus 25% of IPD and OPD collection of Pathology Lab. It is pertinent to note that the assessee paid a sum of Rs. 25,91,597/- to Dr.Aarti Prayag during the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11. The AO vide his aforesaid assessment order has allowed full deduction. When we consider the quantum of amount paid by the assessee during the year vis-à-vis the amount paid and allowed in the immediately preceding assessment year, the payment during the year cannot be termed as unreasonable or excessive. Taking a holistic view of the matter, we hold that the payment....