TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unting to Rs. 11,959 paid by the assessee-firm to Shri Rajmal Paliwal, who represented his HUF as a partner in the firm, could be allowed as a deduction while computing total income of the assessee-firm. The Assessing Officer took the view that it could not be allowed and added it back to assessee's income. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, took the view that though Explanation to section 40(b) r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F or to him individually or when he is partner in his individual capacity but interest is payable to him as individual or to the HUF. But Legislature has made no change with regard to other items mentioned in Section 40(b) viz., commission, salary, bonus or remuneration. We agree with the learned Assessing Officer that this is obviously because interest is paid on money which may belong to the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion, the commission was received by him which situation was covered by section 40(b). We are enable to agree with the view of learned CIT(A) because it is a recognised principle of legal interpretation that when the provisions of a statute are clear, the Courts cannot insert those words which are not there nor can it take away those words which are there. Since in Explanations to section 40(b) t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hold that Rs. 11,959 paid as commission to the partner Shri Rajmal Paliwal by the firm has to be disallowed while computing the income of the firm despite the fact that he represented his HUF as a partner in the firm. 4. The Cross-objection filed by the assessee only supports the order of the CIT (Appeals) and is, therefore, dismissed. 5. Accordingly, while appeal filed by the revenue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
