https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70499 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, ruling that the remuneration of Rs. 21,000 paid to Jayabalan should be assessed as his individual income, not the Hindu Undivided Family's (HUF). The Tribunal considered Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that remuneration for personal services is the individual's income, not the HUF's, particularly when exceeding the family's investment in the business. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming that the remuneration was for Jayabalan's personal services and not part of the HUF's income. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:42:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70499 The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, ruling that the remuneration of Rs. 21,000 paid to Jayabalan should be assessed as his individual income, not the Hindu Undivided Family's (HUF). The Tribunal considered Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that remuneration for personal services is the individual's income, not the HUF's, particularly when exceeding the family's investment in the business. Consequently, the revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming that the remuneration was for Jayabalan's personal services and not part of the HUF's income. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70499