TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (10) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the provision of s. 40 (b) of the Act. 2. The facts of the cases and the decision of the CIT(A) thereon could be gathered from the following extract of his order under appeal: "In ground No. 6 the appellant challenges the addition of Rs. 13,557 being interest paid to the two partners S/Shri Manharlal O. Parikh and Surendra O. Parikh u/s 40 (b). The firm consists only of two partners S/Shri M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at High Court are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Hence, in my opinion, the ruling of the two cases are not applicable to the assessee's case. In both the cases considered by the Gujarat High Court each of the partners had his individual account in addition to the HUF A/cs. As partner representing the HUF is to be considered as partner individually; their Lordship of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they will also have to be considered as individual accounts vis-a-vis other partners as they represent the initial contribution of capital and are made up of profit and interest credited according to the terms of the partnership and drawings debited to them. Considering these facts I am of the opinion that the ITO's action is valid in law Appeal fails on this ground. 3. Relying on the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly relied on the order of the CIT(A) and justified has action. 4 We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the parties as well as gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid two cases and we find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. We are constrained to observe that the CIT(A) was not justified in distinguishing the ....