<?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>2022 (6) TMI 1269 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424428</link>
    <description>The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the remuneration paid to the working partner was within the permissible limits of section 40(b) and not subject to disallowance under section 40A(3). The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and concluded that the remuneration constituted a share of profits, not an expenditure subject to section 40A(3).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 21:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1269 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424428</link>
      <description>The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the remuneration paid to the working partner was within the permissible limits of section 40(b) and not subject to disallowance under section 40A(3). The Tribunal referred to relevant case law and concluded that the remuneration constituted a share of profits, not an expenditure subject to section 40A(3).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>