https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66210 The Supreme Court held that the remuneration received by the partners of the firm should be treated as their individual income and not as part of the income of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The Court emphasized that the remuneration was for the partners' services and not connected to the HUF investment, following principles distinguishing between returns on investment and compensation for services rendered. The decision upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's ruling, dismissing the revenue's appeals and the assessees' cross-objections. en-us Sat, 31 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:13:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66210 The Supreme Court held that the remuneration received by the partners of the firm should be treated as their individual income and not as part of the income of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). The Court emphasized that the remuneration was for the partners' services and not connected to the HUF investment, following principles distinguishing between returns on investment and compensation for services rendered. The decision upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's ruling, dismissing the revenue's appeals and the assessees' cross-objections. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 31 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66210