9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the assessee is a Hindu undivided family (" HUF consisting of the karta, his wife and minor children. The HUF is a partner through the karta in certain firms. In the assessment proceedings for the year 1975-76, it has claimed deduction of a sum paid to the karta as remuneration for services rendered. In I.T.R.C. No. 127/80, the deduction claimed was Rs. 12,000 and in I.T.R.C. No. 128180, a sum of Rs. 6,000 was claimed. In the previous assessment years such deductions were claimed to the extent of Rs, 4,800 and also allowed by the assessing officer. But, for the assessment year 1975-76, the ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no agreement between the HUF and the karta for payment of remuneration to the latter. The view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services rendered, there shall be an agreement between the parties for payment of such remuneration. But such an agreement need not be in writing. It may be inferred from the course of conduct of the parties. Mr. Raghavendra Rao for the Revenue urged that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was no proof of any consultation between the husband and the wife in regard to payment of remuneration for services rendered by the former and, therefore, we cannot infer anything to the contrary in this advisory jurisdiction. It is true that there is no evidence of consultation between the husband and the wife as to the payment of remuneration for services rendered. But that is not the only thing which is needed to be looked into in a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar view on the facts which lie in close parallel with the present cases. That, however, is not to state that all that has been claimed by the HUF should be allowed. In the previous years, the HUF paid only Rs. 4,800 to the karta towards his remuneration. In the years concerned in these two cases, the HUF has claimed Rs. 12,000 and Rs. 6,000 as remuneration paid to the karta. The Tribunal has observed that the remuneration paid was excessive and that would be detrimental to the interests of the family because the HUF would thereby be deprived of the income which would have gone to it. It has also observed that no commercial expediency for enhancing the remuneration was made out. If the claim for remuneration is found to be excessive, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
