9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
The judgment involves determining whether a payment made by one partner to another partner upon retirement from a partnership should be considered as a capital expenditure or a revenue expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Summary: The case involved a partnership between two individuals in Bombay, carrying on business under the firm name of F. D. Mehta and Co. Disputes arose between the partners, leading to one partner's retirement with a settlement amount that included a payment of Rs. 1,07,767 described as for preserving and maintaining the business. The assessee claimed this amount as a deduction under section 37 of the Act, but the Income-tax Officer disallowed it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed 50% of the amount as a deduction, while the Tribunal held the entire expenditure to be capital in nature, not allowable under section 37(1). In the judgment, it was emphasized that the thin line between revenue and capital expenditure depends on the nature of the business, expenditure, and right acquired. The payment in question was deemed as capital expenditure since it was made to acquire the interest of the retiring partner in the partnership, transitioning the assessee to sole ownership. This acquisition of a profit-yielding asset was considered capital expenditure, not deductible under section 37 of the Act. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the payment was in the nature of capital expenditure, not allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
|
