<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (3) TMI 224 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64373</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance made by the AO on remuneration paid by the assessee firm to its partners. The partners were working partners, and the remuneration was found to be within the limits of s. 40(b). As s. 40(b) was invoked, s. 40A(2) did not apply, rendering the AO&#039;s disallowance unsustainable. The Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the deletion of disallowance was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102814" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 224 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64373</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the disallowance made by the AO on remuneration paid by the assessee firm to its partners. The partners were working partners, and the remuneration was found to be within the limits of s. 40(b). As s. 40(b) was invoked, s. 40A(2) did not apply, rendering the AO&#039;s disallowance unsustainable. The Revenue&#039;s appeal challenging the deletion of disallowance was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>