TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar (AY) 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "I hereby direct the Income Tax Officer (E)-1(3), Mumbai to file an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai against the order of the Lld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in the ITBA DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077847931(1) dated 26.06.2025 in the case of M/s. Indian Rugby Footbal having PAN: AAATI1523Q for A.Y. 2020-21 on the following grounds:- 1. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 21,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer out of salary of Rs. 46,50,000/- paid to Shri Naseer Hussain, a sp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lary paid to all other employees/ professionals/ Officers/Coaches which taken together amounted to Rs. 66,75,200/-only during the year thereby clearly indicating that excessive salary paid to Shri Naseer Hussain was actually an act of diversion of Trust funds for the benefit of a related person." 5. "On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CII(A) has erred in overlooking the ratio of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (193 ITR 321) wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has categorically held that although the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable in income-tax proceedings, consistency can be applied only where facts and circumstances remain identical in subseque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 11 was also denied. The total income was assessed at Rs. 2,18,98,107/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Relying upon the order of CIT(A) in assessee's own case of AY 2014-15, the CIT(A) held that the salary paid to Mr. Nasser Husain cannot be held to be excessive and thus, there was no violation of provision of section 13(1)(c)(ii) rws 13(2)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) set aside the disallowance made by the AO and allowed benefit/exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. Further aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before the ITAT. All the grounds are inter-related which basically emanate from the disallowance of Rs. 21,50,000/- paid to Mr. Nasser Husain as salary and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents. Under his tutelage and leadership, the assessee earned revenue by way of grant and sponsorship of Rs. 5 Cr. for AY2020-21 and also received grant of Rs. 2Cr. from various sports bodies including International Rugby Board and Asian Ruby Football Union. The Ld. AR also submitted that the identical issue was taken up for scrutiny in AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 wherein the AO made disallowance of salary paid to Mr. Nasser Husain treating it as excessive and unreasonable. However, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance for AY 2014-15, 2017-18 and 2018-19. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case except the increase in salary paid to Mr. Nasser Husain. The increase in salary is on account of increase in role ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y of Engineering and Educational Research, (2024) 161 taxmann.com (Bom). 7. We have heard both parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. We find that this is a repetitive issue wherein the AO has disallowed a part of the salary by treating it as excessive and also denied exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The CIT(A) for AY 2014-15, in his appellate order u/s 250 of the Act, has elaborately discussed the subject issue and held that the remuneration paid to Mr. Nasser Husain cannot be held to be excessive and accordingly, the same was not hit by provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) rws 13(2)(c) of the Act. Similarly, in his order u/s 250 of the Act dated 15.07.2025 f....