Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
M/S. Ratilal & Sons, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer-17(3)(1), Mumbai on 21 April, 2022 cites

S. Magnus vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 25 September, 1957

Thus, for invoking provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, following conditions need to be cumulatively satisfied:- (i) there should be an expenditure; (ii) expenditure should be in mode other than prescribed by the section; and (iii) amount of expenditure should be more than Rs. 20,000. As stated in the earlier portion of this order, the remuneration paid to partner is share of profit of the firm and it retains the same character in the hands of 5 M/s. Ratilal & Sons ITA No.5276/Mum./2019 the partner and taxable as such. It is not in the nature of salary paid by the employer to an employee, deduction of which can be claimed as an expenditure by the employer. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in S. Magnus v/s CIT: [1958] 33 ITR 538 observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mudiam Oil Co. And Ors. vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 21 July, 1971

It is also open to the assessee to identify the person who has received the cash payment. Rule 6DD provides that an assessee can be exempted from the requirement of payment by a crossed cheque or crossed bank draft in the circumstances specified under the rule. It will be clear from the provisions of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD that they are intended to regulate the business transactions and to prevent the use of unaccounted money or reduce the chances to use black-money for business transactions. - Mudiam Oil Co. v. ITO [1973] 92 ITR 519 (AP). If the payment is made by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or a crossed bank draft, then it will be easier to ascertain, when deduction is claimed, whether the payment was genuine and whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. In interpreting a taxing statute the Court cannot be oblivious of the proliferation of black-money which is under circulation in our country. Any restraint intended to curb the chances and opportunities to use or create black-money should not be regarded as curtailing the freedom of trade or business." (emphasis supplied)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs R.M. Chidambaram Pillai Etc on 17 November, 1976

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is trite that the partnership firm is not a juristic 3 M/s. Ratilal & Sons ITA No.5276/Mum./2019 person and there is no separate identity for the firm and its partners. The partnership is only a collective of separate persons and not a legal person in itself. For the purpose of the Act, a firm is considered as a unit of assessment by special provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.M. Chdambaram Pillai: (1977) 106 ITR 292, while holding that payment of salary to a partner represents a special share of the profits and the salary paid to the partner retains the same character of the income, observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 205 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1