- (1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) the following question has been referred in the form of this reference: Whether the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is justified in law and on facts in holding that provisions of Section 40(b) could not be invoked in the case for payment of Rs. 24,000/- as commission made to S/Shri V.K. Varshney and P.K. Varshney partners of the assessee firm
(3.) It appears that the case of the assessee was that there was a registered partnership frim in which there were eight partners. Sri V.K. Varshney was partner in his individul capacity while the rest of the 7 were partners in their HUF capacity. Sri V.K. Varshney and Sri. P.K. Varshney were kartas of their respective HUF.;