<?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>1993 (9) TMI 60 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20066</link>
    <description>Section 40(b) permits disallowance only of payments made to a partner in that capacity, not amounts attributable to a Hindu undivided family represented by the partner. Where a partner of the assessee-firm acted as karta of an HUF, payments to him or to the connected concern were not treated as payments to the partner personally. Following the earlier Full Bench view, the amounts were held outside section 40(b) and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:20:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (9) TMI 60 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20066</link>
      <description>Section 40(b) permits disallowance only of payments made to a partner in that capacity, not amounts attributable to a Hindu undivided family represented by the partner. Where a partner of the assessee-firm acted as karta of an HUF, payments to him or to the connected concern were not treated as payments to the partner personally. Following the earlier Full Bench view, the amounts were held outside section 40(b) and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>