Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the remuneration received by the karta from the company did not constitute income of the Hindu Undivided Family for the two years in question.
Analysis: The facts include payment of salary to the karta under a special resolution and in compliance with Section 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the articles of association. The Tribunal found that the salary was attributable to the karta's special qualifications, long experience and services rendered (including extended residence to manage company affairs), that the salary scale differed among directors, and that the amounts paid were substantially larger than the family's investment in company shares. These findings indicate the absence of a real connection between the joint family investment and the appointment or remuneration of the karta; the remuneration was therefore linked to personal services and expertise rather than return on family funds.
Conclusion: The Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the remuneration received by the karta did not constitute income of the Hindu Undivided Family.
Ratio Decidendi: Where there is no real connection between joint family investment and the appointment or remuneration of the karta, remuneration paid to the karta as compensation for personal services is not income of the Hindu Undivided Family.