9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,000 made on account of advantage derived from the premises 'Bairathi Bhawan' for the assessment year 1976-77. Analysis: The case involved a partner of a firm who occupied a portion of leased premises rent-free. The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 9,000 as a benefit derived by the partner from the firm. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the firm should have been assessed for notional income from the property first, and then allocated to partners. The Tribunal ruled that since the firm was not the owner of the property, no income accrued to the firm. The Tribunal found it difficult to tax the benefit under any specific section. However, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision to delete the Rs. 9,000 addition. The court referred to Section 28(iv) of the Income-tax Act, which states that any benefit arising from business or profession is taxable. Citing precedents, the court noted that if a firm provides rent-free accommodation to a partner, the value of the perquisite can be included in the partner's income under Section 28(iv). The court distinguished a case where the amount was already disallowed in the firm's hands, unlike the present case. The court emphasized that the benefit in question arose from the firm's business activities. The Income-tax Officer had previously assessed the partner at Rs. 4,000, which was increased to Rs. 9,000 due to substantial investment in remodeling the premises. The court criticized the lower authorities for not explicitly citing the relevant law in the assessment order but upheld that the benefit was taxable under Section 28(iv). Considering the firm's investment in remodeling and the partner's occupancy of the leased premises, the court concluded that the Rs. 9,000 addition was justified. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to delete the addition was overturned in favor of the Revenue. In conclusion, the court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in deleting the Rs. 9,000 addition derived from the leased premises. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the applicability of Section 28(iv) and the direct nexus between the business and the benefit derived by the partner.
|
