CIT v. Unimax Laboratories (2009) 311 ITR 191 (P&H)
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in allowing the amount of salary and bonus paid by the firm to partners for services rendered by them on the ground of having technical qualification and expertise, though they represented their Hindu undivided families and section 40(b) of the Act was not attracted.
Earlier the Supreme court has held that in case of commission paid to a representative partners (i.e.) representative for HUF. The same will come under purview of 40(b)... I think the case is Rasik Lal & co. v CIT (SC)
So is it safe to presume that if the Representative Partner is qualified then any remuneration directly related to such qualification shall not come under the purview of 40(b).
The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in allowing the amount of salary and bonus paid by the firm to partners for services rendered by them on the ground of having technical qualification and expertise, though they represented their Hindu undivided families and section 40(b) of the Act was not attracted.
Earlier the Supreme court has held that in case of commission paid to a representative partners (i.e.) representative for HUF. The same will come under purview of 40(b)... I think the case is Rasik Lal & co. v CIT (SC)
So is it safe to presume that if the Representative Partner is qualified then any remuneration directly related to such qualification shall not come under the purview of 40(b).