https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99034 Salary paid to a manager who was also a partner of the managing agency firm was held not to be disallowable under section 348 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the facts, because pre-amendment section 348 did not treat every partner as the managing agent and the 1960 amendment was prospective. The payment was also deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as remuneration for actual business services that was reasonable and wholly for business purposes. On the stock discrepancy issue, the Tribunal accepted the account books and the returns filed before the Textile Commissioner over inflated bank declarations used for overdraft facilities, so the addition as income from undisclosed source was deleted. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:43:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99034 Salary paid to a manager who was also a partner of the managing agency firm was held not to be disallowable under section 348 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the facts, because pre-amendment section 348 did not treat every partner as the managing agent and the 1960 amendment was prospective. The payment was also deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as remuneration for actual business services that was reasonable and wholly for business purposes. On the stock discrepancy issue, the Tribunal accepted the account books and the returns filed before the Textile Commissioner over inflated bank declarations used for overdraft facilities, so the addition as income from undisclosed source was deleted. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 19 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99034