9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally the real partner was Mohan Lal Choudhary, HUF. Interest and salary have been paid to Shri Mohan Lal Choudhary. Individual, which had been disallowed by the ITO and AAC acting under s. 40(b) of the IT Act. The authorised representative argued that the addition under s. 40 (b) is not legal and correct as the salary has not been paid to the partner but to Shri Mohan Lal Choudhary in his individu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the sides. As far as the decision relied upon of their Lordships; of the Patna High Court in (1984) 39 CTR (Pat) 345 (FB) : (1984) 146 ITR 240 (Pat)(FB) is concerned this decision is not relevant as this decision is in the case of HUF and not in the case of firm. Sec. 40 (b) is meant for firm and not for partner. Thus this decision is not relevant. The decision of ITAT, Patna Bench 'A' dt. 30th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oenka vs. CIT (1980) 18 CTR (Mad) 66: (1981) 127 ITR 397 (Mad) (ii) CIT vs. London Machinery Co. (1979) 10 CTR (All) 301 : (1979) 117 ITR 111 (All) (iii) Sanghi Motors vs. CIT (1982) 29 CTR (Del) 182 : (1982) 135 ITR 359 (Del) (iv) Jalam Chand Mangilal vs. CIT (1982) 11 Taxman 131 (MP) (v) Decision of ITAT, Special Bench in ITO vs. Gujjarmal Amrit Lal reported at (1983)3 SOT 495 (Del) (SB) (v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
