https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17495 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the interest paid to the son and daughter of a partner, following a partial partition, should be considered as interest paid to the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Consequently, the firm was not entitled to claim a deduction for the interest paid under Section 36 of the Income-tax Act, as it was effectively interest paid to a partner, disallowed under Section 40(b). The court emphasized that the prohibition against recognizing partial partitions under Section 171(9) aimed to prevent the fragmentation of assessable units to reduce tax liability. en-us Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 17:01:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17495 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the interest paid to the son and daughter of a partner, following a partial partition, should be considered as interest paid to the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Consequently, the firm was not entitled to claim a deduction for the interest paid under Section 36 of the Income-tax Act, as it was effectively interest paid to a partner, disallowed under Section 40(b). The court emphasized that the prohibition against recognizing partial partitions under Section 171(9) aimed to prevent the fragmentation of assessable units to reduce tax liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17495