HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SATISH CHANDRA, C.J., M.B. FAROOQI, J.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Appellant
Versus
Kailash Motors - Respondent
Income-tax Reference 680 of 1977
Decided on : Nov 09, 1978
Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. THE assessee was a partnership firm. Its partners had a capital account as well as a current account with the firm. The firm paid interest to the partners on the balances in the capital account. The firm also charged interest from the partners on the debit balances of their current account.
2. FOR the assessment years 1970-71, 1972-73 and 1973-74, the ITO disallowed the entire amount of interest paid by the firm to its partners in respect of the capital account under Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act. The assessee appealed. The AAC held that it was the net amount paid by the firm to the partner, after adjusting the interest paid by the partner to the firm, that alone could be disallowed under Section 40(b). He granted relief to the partners accordingly.
The revenue went up to the Tribunal, which affirmed the view taken by the AAC. It relied on a decision of this court in Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 176.
3. AT the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that only the net amount of interest paid to a partner after deducting the interest paid by him could be added to the firm's income under Section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
4. IN CIT v. London Machinery Co. (Income Tax Reference No. 608 of 1977, decided on 26th October, 1978) [1979] 117 ITR 111, a Bench of this court has held that payment of interest to a partner on amounts brought by him from his HUF or from his individual funds is in either case payment of interest to the partner and both these kinds of payments are within the purview of Section 40(b) and hence are inadmissible as deduction, but in view of the decision of this court in Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad the net amount paid by the firm to its partners alone is disallowable.
In view of these decisions, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.