https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58170 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals against the Commissioner's order, dismissing the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee. The decision was based on the interpretation of section 40(B) and relevant judicial precedents, particularly following the Bombay High Court's ruling that interest paid to a partner in his individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(B) if separate from his role representing his HUF. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision and set aside the Commissioner's order regarding the disallowance of interest amounts, affirming the assessee's position in the appeals. en-us Sat, 30 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:47:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58170 The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals against the Commissioner's order, dismissing the appeals of the Revenue and the cross-objections of the assessee. The decision was based on the interpretation of section 40(B) and relevant judicial precedents, particularly following the Bombay High Court's ruling that interest paid to a partner in his individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(B) if separate from his role representing his HUF. The Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision and set aside the Commissioner's order regarding the disallowance of interest amounts, affirming the assessee's position in the appeals. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 30 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58170