https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187530 The court held that the Commissioner erred in invoking section 263 as the salary paid to H.P. Patel, as Karta of the HUF, qualified as remuneration to a working partner under Explanation 4 to section 40(b). The court found that the assessing officer had not properly considered the allowance of salary, leading to the restoration of the original assessment and allowing the appeal. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Oct 2016 17:12:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187530 The court held that the Commissioner erred in invoking section 263 as the salary paid to H.P. Patel, as Karta of the HUF, qualified as remuneration to a working partner under Explanation 4 to section 40(b). The court found that the assessing officer had not properly considered the allowance of salary, leading to the restoration of the original assessment and allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187530