9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of "majuri" payments u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Legitimacy and nature of "majuri" payments. 3. Applicability of section 40(b) to payments made to partners. 4. Examination of net surplus as remuneration. Summary: Issue 1: Disallowance of "majuri" payments u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 The assessee, a registered partnership firm, filed its return for the assessment year 1976-77. The Income-tax Officer framed the assessment u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings u/s 263, arguing that the Income-tax Officer failed to disallow "majuri" payments made to partners under section 40(b). The Commissioner held that these payments were essentially "remuneration" and thus disallowed them u/s 40(b). Issue 2: Legitimacy and nature of "majuri" payments The Tribunal, relying on its previous decisions, found that the "majuri" payments were legitimate expenses incurred to bring into existence the profits of the firm. The Tribunal held that these payments were not a device to reduce taxable profits and thus allowed the appeal of the assessee-firm. Issue 3: Applicability of section 40(b) to payments made to partners The High Court examined whether section 40(b) permits differentiation between payments made to a partner in his capacity as a partner and payments made for services rendered. The Court held that section 40(b) imposes an absolute embargo against deductions for any payments of interest, salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration made by the firm to any partner. The Court found no scope for recognizing dual capacities of a partner for the purpose of applying section 40(b). Issue 4: Examination of net surplus as remuneration The Court acknowledged the alternative contention that only the net surplus received by partners, after deducting expenses incurred for the firm's work, should be considered as remuneration. The Court directed the Tribunal to examine the genuineness of the expenses incurred by the partners and determine the real amount of remuneration that could be disallowed under section 40(b). Conclusion: The High Court answered questions Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in the negative and against the assessee, emphasizing that section 40(b) applies to any payment made to a partner by the firm. The Court refused to answer question No. 3 due to insufficient material on record and directed the Tribunal to re-examine this aspect based on the observations made. The reference was answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
|
