<?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>2003 (4) TMI 262 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71186</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, allowing remuneration paid to a partner representing his HUF as a deductible expense under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and clarifying the applicability of Section 40(b) in cases involving partners representing HUFs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:34:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 262 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71186</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, allowing remuneration paid to a partner representing his HUF as a deductible expense under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal was dismissed for statistical purposes, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision and clarifying the applicability of Section 40(b) in cases involving partners representing HUFs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>