<?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>1971 (1) TMI 28 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8105</link>
    <description>Salary paid by a firm to its partners was held not deductible in computing the firm&#039;s business income where section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied. Although such payment might otherwise qualify as business expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business, the provision was treated as an absolute statutory bar on any allowance for salary, commission, remuneration or interest paid by a firm to any partner. The fact that the partners were also kartas of their Hindu undivided families did not alter the position, because the partner&#039;s capacity was irrelevant to the firm&#039;s deduction claim. A contractual agreement for remuneration could not override the prohibition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (1) TMI 28 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8105</link>
      <description>Salary paid by a firm to its partners was held not deductible in computing the firm&#039;s business income where section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 applied. Although such payment might otherwise qualify as business expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business, the provision was treated as an absolute statutory bar on any allowance for salary, commission, remuneration or interest paid by a firm to any partner. The fact that the partners were also kartas of their Hindu undivided families did not alter the position, because the partner&#039;s capacity was irrelevant to the firm&#039;s deduction claim. A contractual agreement for remuneration could not override the prohibition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>