Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.24 seconds)Section 16 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
The Indian Partnership Act, 1932
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [Entire Act]
Nawab Habibulla vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 December, 1942
15. For the Revenue a number of decided cases, particularly, Syed Mohd. Isa v. Commr. of Income-tax, 10 ITR 267 -- (AIR 1942 All 194); Habibulla v. Commr. of Income-tax, 11 ITR 295= (AIR 1943 PC 20); Commr. of Income-tax v. Kamakhaya Narayana Singh, 16 ITR 325 - (AIR 1949 PC 1); Kameshwar Singh v. Commr. of Income-tax, ; Commr. of Income-tax v. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh.
Maharajadhiraja Sir Kameshwar Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bihar And ... on 25 October, 1960
15. For the Revenue a number of decided cases, particularly, Syed Mohd. Isa v. Commr. of Income-tax, 10 ITR 267 -- (AIR 1942 All 194); Habibulla v. Commr. of Income-tax, 11 ITR 295= (AIR 1943 PC 20); Commr. of Income-tax v. Kamakhaya Narayana Singh, 16 ITR 325 - (AIR 1949 PC 1); Kameshwar Singh v. Commr. of Income-tax, ; Commr. of Income-tax v. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh.
Commissioner Income-Tax, U.P vs Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh on 9 April, 1965
15. For the Revenue a number of decided cases, particularly, Syed Mohd. Isa v. Commr. of Income-tax, 10 ITR 267 -- (AIR 1942 All 194); Habibulla v. Commr. of Income-tax, 11 ITR 295= (AIR 1943 PC 20); Commr. of Income-tax v. Kamakhaya Narayana Singh, 16 ITR 325 - (AIR 1949 PC 1); Kameshwar Singh v. Commr. of Income-tax, ; Commr. of Income-tax v. Kunwar Trivikram Narain Singh.
K. Simrathmull vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 9 August, 1966
57 ITR 29 = (AIR 1965 SC 1386) and K. Simrathmul v. Commr. of Income-tax, (1967) 64 ITR 166 (Mad) have been cited to us to show that the salary received by a partner from his firm had no nexus with the estate and that its immediate source was but his service. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served by examining those cases, as the contention of the Revenue in these references based on those decisions overlooks that a partner cannot be the employee of the firm of which he is a member, that the salary paid to him is but an element of his share of its profits and that Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules has no relevance to the source but is applied to the entire income of the firm which by disallowance includes also the salary paid to the partner.