https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11942 Salary paid to a partner representing a Hindu undivided family was treated as falling within section 40(b), because representation of the family did not confer a separate partner status for the purpose of allowing such payments; the amount was therefore disallowable in favour of Revenue. A CBDT circular on low tax effect did not operate as an absolute bar to departmental action, as it contained exceptions, and the objection based on that circular was not entertained at the stage after reference without prior notice to Revenue. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. en-us Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 11:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11942 Salary paid to a partner representing a Hindu undivided family was treated as falling within section 40(b), because representation of the family did not confer a separate partner status for the purpose of allowing such payments; the amount was therefore disallowable in favour of Revenue. A CBDT circular on low tax effect did not operate as an absolute bar to departmental action, as it contained exceptions, and the objection based on that circular was not entertained at the stage after reference without prior notice to Revenue. The question was answered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11942