Madras High Court judgement in the Case of Anand kumar v.

  • by

“Many times this argument has come up, whether or not expenses be claimed by the partner against the remuneration received from the Partnership Firm. Madras High Court judgement in the Case of Anandkumar v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax cleared the matter to a great extent.

The judgement points out the difference between Turnover and Remuneration and clarified that Remuneration cannot be treated as Turnover of a business and therefore benefit of section 44AD (Presumptive Income tax wherein tax is levied on 50% of the turnover provided Turnover is not more than 50 Lacs) is denied to Assessee.

One may also infer from this decision that since the remuneration is not turnover of the business therefore expenses from Remuneration can not be allowed in Partner’s individual tax return.

Read the full judgement from: (”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *