1982 (3) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Indore, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the remuneration of Rs. 18,000 paid to Shri Prakashchandra Agrawal, karta, was a permissible deduction from the income of the assessee-HUF received from the two firms, namely, M/s. Nemar Construction Co., Khal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ribunal held that the remuneration paid to the karta of a HUF was an allowable deduction if it was found that the remuneration was paid to him for the services rendered by him to the family. The Tribunal further found that Prakashchandra Agrawal, in his capacity as the karta of HUF, was looking after the interests of the family in the aforesaid two firms and it was only through his efforts that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 887, the Supreme Court held that the remuneration paid by the HUF to the karta who managed the family business was liable to be allowed as an expenditure under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, if the remuneration was bona fide and in the interest of and expedient for the business of the family and that the payment was genuine and not excessive. In the instant case, it has been found by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X