Which itr to efile?

As You Have Said Above You Have Received Salary Income Around Rs.9 Lacs And You also have a business income means other than above Salary

So Sir You Are Required to File ITR 4 And Not ITR 1, Because ITR 4 Include Both Business Income As Well As Salary Income

Thanks for the reply Mehul. I would like to clarify that I do not own any proprietary business. I work as an individual partner and earn commissions from the product sales or volume sales happening from my network marketing profession. Do I still need to fill ITR-4?

Since Even Comssion Received From Partnership Firm Will Be Form The Part of Salary During Calculation Of Maximum Allowed Deduction As Salary in the Hands of Partnership To Partner

So It Will Be Form Part of Salary And Salary Received From Partnership Will Tax As Business Income The Hands Of Patner.

Commission paid to a partner as per partnership deed - whether eligible under the Section 44AD? Two main issues would need to be addressed: a. Whether commission paid to partners as per partnership deed is in the nature of salary paid to partners? Section 44AD was made inapplicable (with retrospective effect from April 1, 2011) to commission, brokerage and agency business by the Finance Act, 2012. However, one may argue that commission paid to a partner as provided in partnership deed is in the nature of a share of profit and would not fall within the ambit of commission. The reason is that the source for both commission and salary paid to a partner is the partnership deed. It is merely the method of computation and timing of payment that would vary. A contrary argument may exist that the essence of a partnership is mutual agency. Each partner has the right to enter into agreements with third parties on behalf of other partners and the firm. A question may then arise whether salary, etc paid to partner is income from agency business. It may be noted that unlike the Section 194A which exempts interest paid to a partner by a firm, no such explicit exemption exists for the  507), the P&H High Court held that on payment of commission to a partner, the relationship of principal and agent comes into place and withholding is required on such payment. b. Whether such commission is eligible under the Section 44AD? The extent of separation of firm and its partners are relevant. In Chidambaram Pillai (supra), the Apex Court observed that a firm is not a legal person even though it has some attributes of personality. In income tax law, a firm is a unit of assessment not a full person. Consequently, there cannot be a contract of employment, in strict law, between a firm and its partner. Any agreement for remuneration must be regarded as portion of the profits made over as a reward for human capital brought in. Section 28(v) also provides: ...any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, due to, or received by, a partner of a firm from such firm… The language of the charging Section is similar to the definition of remuneration in the Section 40(b)(i). Going by the above observations of the Apex Court and the wording of the charging Section, it appears that the salary, commission, etc., would have the same character as the profits earned by the firm. Given the same, if the profits of the firm are from an eligible business, the same should be eligible for claim of the Section 44AD.