https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62618 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the individual representing the HUF was considered the actual partner and a working partner under Explanation 4 of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the remuneration paid to the partner representing his HUF was deemed allowable, emphasizing that partnerships are between individuals, not entities like HUF. en-us Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jan 2011 17:42:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62618 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the individual representing the HUF was considered the actual partner and a working partner under Explanation 4 of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the remuneration paid to the partner representing his HUF was deemed allowable, emphasizing that partnerships are between individuals, not entities like HUF. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62618