9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Chandmul Rajgarhia v. CIT and holding that the salary paid to the partners should not be disallowed under section 40(b) - we hold that the salary paid to the partners who represented their Hindu undivided families was required to be disallowed under section 40(b). - - - - - Dated:- 30-9-2002 - Judge(s) : R. JAYASIMHA BABU., K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the court was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rejected by the Assessing Officer whose order was upheld by the Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, held that the salary paid to the partners was an allowable deduction. This court in the case of R. M. Appavu Chettiar Sons v. CIT [2002] 256 ITR 289 has held that the Hindu undivided family or its representative does not have any specific status in the Partnership Act and that the salary pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular it should have put the Revenue on notice when the Revenue applied for having the question referred so that the Revenue could gather the relevant material, if any, to show that the matter was within the excepted category. After the question has been referred to us, we cannot now permit the assessee to raise this objection. For the reasons stated in the judgment of this court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
