Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: empanelment :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: form 3cd :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TDS
 
 
« From the Courts »
 ACIT vs. Veer Gems (ITAT Ahmedabad)
  CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bombay High Court)
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Vs. M/s N.C Cables Ltd.
 BDR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
 Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hqrs)
 Delhi High Court interprets applicability of amendments to Arbitration Act
  M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 M/s Skin Institute And Public Services Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)
 ITO vs. Emami Paper Mills Ltd (ITAT Kolkata)
 Surya Prakash Toshniwal HUF vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
 CIT vs. Subhash Vinayak Supnekar (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. M/s. The Asian Marketing (Rajasthan High Court)
May, 05th 2012

S. 40(b)(v): Partnership deed need not quantify partners remuneration

 

The assessees partnership deed provided that the partners would be paid remuneration / salary according to the standards and norms fixed by the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO disallowed the claim for deduction of the salary paid to the partners u/s 40(b)(v) on the ground that as the deed did not quantify the amount of remuneration. This was reversed by the CIT (A) and Tribunal. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:

 

The Tribunal finding that The quantification of the remuneration was apparent from clause 8 of the partnership deed which provided that the remuneration would be payable as per norms fixed by the Income-tax Act. The requirement in law is that remuneration should have been authorized and the amount of remuneration shall not exceed the amount specified in s. 40(b)(v) which uses the word authorised and not the word quantify is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Reengineering Software Re-engineering Software Reverse Engineering Software Reverse Development Software Change Modulation Software Conversion Software Re-creation Software Re-development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions