https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19954 The court held that the salary paid to individual partners, representing their respective Hindu undivided families in a firm, should not be considered part of the share of profit under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that adding back the salary would unfairly burden the joint family and other partners with higher taxes. Referring to the Explanation in section 40(b), the court recognized the representative capacity of partners and rejected the Revenue's plea for reconsideration, citing consistency in interpretation. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue's contention to disallow the remuneration paid to partners for their services. en-us Wed, 09 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:34:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19954 The court held that the salary paid to individual partners, representing their respective Hindu undivided families in a firm, should not be considered part of the share of profit under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The court emphasized that adding back the salary would unfairly burden the joint family and other partners with higher taxes. Referring to the Explanation in section 40(b), the court recognized the representative capacity of partners and rejected the Revenue's plea for reconsideration, citing consistency in interpretation. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue's contention to disallow the remuneration paid to partners for their services. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19954