Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)101ITD215(Asr.)
1. This is bunch of three appeals out of which two are of the assessee and one cross-appeal of the Revenue filed against two orders of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst. yr. 1994-95. Since the issues raised in all these appeals are interrelated and arise from the same orders of CIT(A) for the asst. yr. 1994-95, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. In the assessee's appeal in ITA No. 485/Asr/2000, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the first two grounds of appeal were not pressed as the matter was restored to the file of the AO and while completing set aside assessment under Section 143(3); the AO has not made any addition. The learned Departmental Representative did not raise any objection to such request. Therefore, these two grounds are dismissed as not pressed.3. The next effective issue raised in this appeal, i.e. in ITA No.485/Asr/2000 is that the learned CIT(A) was not justified in su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Amritsar
Reported in : (2006)101ITD324(Asr.)
1. These are cross-appeals--one of the Revenue and another of the assessee filed against the order of CIT(A), Jalandhar, for the asst.yr. 2002-03. Since both the appeals arise from the same order of CIT(A) and are for the same assessment year, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.2. First, I take up assessee's appeal. The only grievance of the assessee is that CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the disallowance of salary of Rs. 2,40,000 paid to partners. The facts of the case are that AO referred to Clause 4 of the partnership deed, dt.4th April, 2001 and observed that the same did not specify the names of working partners and also had not specified salary payable to each working partner. Further, the partnership deed mentioned that working partners shall be entitled to remuneration of Rs. 1,20,000 per annum but salary @ Rs. 60,000 per annum to each of four partners was paid.The AO, therefore, held that the sala...
Tag this Judgment!