{"id":4840,"date":"2012-05-02T12:13:20","date_gmt":"2012-05-02T12:13:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=4840"},"modified":"2012-05-02T12:13:20","modified_gmt":"2012-05-02T12:13:20","slug":"cit-vs-ms-the-asian-marketing-rajasthan-high-court-s-40bv-partnership-deed-need-not-quantify-partners-remuneration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-ms-the-asian-marketing-rajasthan-high-court-s-40bv-partnership-deed-need-not-quantify-partners-remuneration\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. M\/s. The Asian Marketing (Rajasthan High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=712\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=712&varname2=asian_40b_partner_remuneration.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (asian_40b_partner_remuneration.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 40(b)(v): Partnership deed need not quantify partner\u2019s remuneration<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee\u2019s partnership deed provided that the partners would be paid remuneration \/ salary \u201c<em>according to the standards and norms fixed by the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/em>\u201d. 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 <em>quantify<\/em> the amount of remuneration. This was reversed by the CIT (A) and Tribunal. On appeal by the department, HELD dismissing the appeal:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The Tribunal finding that \u201c<em>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 &#8216;<strong>authorised<\/strong>&#8216; and not the word &#8216;<strong>quantify<\/strong>&#8216;<\/em>\u201d is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nThe same view has been taken in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/ms-durga-dass-devki-nandan-vs-ito-hp-high-court-cbdt-circular-which-specifies-that-for-s-40bv-the-partnership-deed-should-specify-the-remuneration-is-invalid\/\"><strong>Durga Dass Devki Nandan<\/strong><\/a><\/strong> 241 CTR 180 (HP) while a contrary view has been taken in <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/sood-brij-associates-vs-cit-delhi-high-court-s-40bv-partnership-deed-must-quantify-or-lay-down-the-manner-of-quantifying-remuneration-to-partners\/\"><strong>Sood Brij &#038; Associates<\/strong><\/a><\/strong> &#038; <strong>Madeena Constructions<\/strong> 134 ITD 1 (Che)(TM)\n<\/div>\n<p><!--\n\n\n\n\n\n\/\/--><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Tribunal finding that \u201c<em>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 &#8216;<strong>authorised<\/strong>&#8216; and not the word &#8216;<strong>quantify<\/strong>&#8216;<\/em>\u201d is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-ms-the-asian-marketing-rajasthan-high-court-s-40bv-partnership-deed-need-not-quantify-partners-remuneration\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}