<?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>1983 (9) TMI 19 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27647</link>
    <description>The High Court concluded that the remuneration paid to Mahendra Sunderlal was for the benefit of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and thus, the assessee-family was entitled to the deduction. The court found that the services rendered by Mahendra were primarily for the HUF, as indicated by the agreement and circumstances. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:56:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 19 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27647</link>
      <description>The High Court concluded that the remuneration paid to Mahendra Sunderlal was for the benefit of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and thus, the assessee-family was entitled to the deduction. The court found that the services rendered by Mahendra were primarily for the HUF, as indicated by the agreement and circumstances. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>