Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1983 (12) TMI 77

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. For the assessment year in question the assessee had paid interest amount of Rs. 1,95,723 to the HUF accounts of the partners. The ITO disallowed the entire amount on the basis of s. 40(b) of the IT Act. The partners to whom this interest was paid represented their respective HUFs as Kartas in the assessee partnership firm. The CIT (Appeals) however allowed the claim of the assessee to the e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to their HUF accounts. However, in the case of CIT vs. Sajjanraj Divanchand (1981) 21 CTR (Guj) 26 : (1980) 126 ITR 654 (Guj) the Gujarat High Court had laid down the principle that so far as the partnership is concerned only an individual can be a partner and so the interest paid to the HUF would not come within the scope of disallowance u/s 40(b). In the latter case of Divanchand Dilipkumar; I.....