9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the interest paid by the firm to its partners can be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the partners represent their Hindu undivided family (HUF) but the interest is paid to them in their individual capacity. 2. Whether the Explanations inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, effective from April 1, 1985, are clarificatory in nature and applicable to assessments prior to the assessment year 1985-86. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of Section 40(b) to Interest Paid to Partners The primary issue is whether the interest paid to partners, who represent their HUFs but receive interest in their individual capacity, can be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee firm paid interest to two partners, who were kartas of their respective HUFs, in their individual capacities. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest under section 40(b), but the Tribunal later allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the interest paid in individual capacities should not be disallowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the amendment introduced with effect from April 1, 1985, was clarificatory and applicable to the assessment year 1984-85. The Tribunal relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in N. T. R. Estate v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 285, which supported this view. Issue 2: Clarificatory Nature of Explanations to Section 40(b) The second issue concerns whether the Explanations inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, are clarificatory and applicable to prior assessments. Explanation 2 to section 40(b) clarifies that interest paid to a partner in his individual capacity, when he represents an HUF, should not be disallowed under section 40(b). The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) also clarified this in a circular, indicating the legislative intent to avoid further controversy and litigation. The judgment reviews various High Court decisions on this matter, noting a divergence in judicial opinion. Courts such as the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, and Gauhati High Courts, along with the later decision of the Madras High Court, have held that the dual capacity of partners should be recognized, and interest paid in their individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(b). Conversely, the Allahabad, Delhi, Karnataka, and Patna High Courts, along with the earlier decision of the Madras High Court, have taken the opposite view. The judgment emphasizes that for the purpose of section 40(b), the Revenue should consider the real character of the person receiving the payment. If a partner acts in a dual capacity, interest paid in his individual capacity should not be disallowed. This position aligns with the CBDT's circular, which recognizes the distinction between a partner acting in a representative capacity and an individual capacity. Conclusion The court concluded that the interest paid to the partners in their individual capacity should not be disallowed under section 40(b). It held that Explanation 2 to section 40(b) is clarificatory and applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of interest paid to the partners in their individual capacity. The judgment thus answers both questions in favor of the assessee, affirming the clarificatory nature of the Explanations and their applicability to prior assessments. There will be no order as to costs.
|
