TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1958 (10) TMI 54
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices to the Hindu undivided family by looking after the business on the remuneration mentioned in the agreements. Copies of these documents are annexures 'A' and 'A-1' of the statement of the case. In the assessment for the year 1953-54 the assessee claimed that the sum of Rs. 6,600 should be deducted under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act as the remuneration paid to the two coparceners for a period of 11 months. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the whole claim except the sum of Rs. 600, on the ground that the payment of salary to the members of the Hindu undivided family had been claimed only for the purpose of reducing the incidence of taxation and not on any principle of commercial expediency. An appeal was taken....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... On behalf of the assessee, Mr. S.N. Dutta put forward the argument that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong as a matter of law in holding that for the services rendered to the partnership business the assessee was not entitled to claim any deduction of the salaries paid to Gulzarilal and MadanlaJ. The submission of learned counsel was that the Hindu undivided family owned twelve annas share in the partnership business, called Hiralal Gulzarilal, and for earning profits under the partnership the assessee had to employ the two coparceners, Gulzarilal and Madanlal, and, therefore, it was entitled under section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act to claim the expenses incurred in payment of the salaries to the two coparceners from the profits derived....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Lordships that whether an amount paid to a member of the Hindu undivided family by way of remuneration for services rendered in the business of the family can be legitimately deducted in computing the profit of the business will very largely depend on the facts of each case, but the amount paid can be legitimately deducted if it is found to be a bona fide payment to a bona fide employee for services actually rendered and is not excessive or unreasonable and is not a device to escape the income-tax. The point therefore for determination is whether the payments have been made to the members of the family as a bona fide remuneration for the services rendered by them and are not excessive or unreasonable or they are merely a device to escape ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the Appellate Tribunal. But the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as to the payment to Gulzarilal and Madanlal has not been upset by the Appellate Tribunal, and it must be taken that it affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on this point. We, therefore, proceed upon the footing that the finding of fact of the income-tax authorities in this case is that neither Gulzarilal nor Madanlal has rendered any service to the parlnership business nor contributed to the earning of profits to the Hindu undivided family from the share of the partnership business. In other words, there is no nexus between the payments made by the Hindu undivided family to the family members and the profits of the Hindu undivide....