9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the disallowance of interest paid by a firm to its partner. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute involved an assessee firm deriving income from vehicle financing, specifically concerning the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 38,738 for the assessment year 1973-74. The Income-tax Officer did not consider the interest charged on the debit balance of partners' drawing accounts when making the disallowance. The firm had paid Rs. 38,738 as interest to partners, while partners had paid Rs. 7,239 as interest to the firm, resulting in a net payment of Rs. 32,397 by the firm. The assessee contended that the disallowance should be limited to the net amount paid to partners, citing section 40(b) of the Act. The primary issue for consideration was whether the disallowance of interest under section 40(b) should be based on the gross amount or the net amount after setting off interest paid by partners to the firm. The High Court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Keshavji Ravji and Co. v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 1, which emphasized that when interest transactions between a firm and its partner exhibit mutuality and relate to partnership funds, section 40(b) allows for quantifying interest based on such mutuality. The Supreme Court held that only the excess interest paid by the firm to a partner beyond what is received could be included in computing the firm's profits. Notably, the High Court disapproved a contrary view taken by the Madras High Court in CIT v. O. M. S. S. Sankaralinga Nadar and Co. [1984] 147 ITR 332. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 40(b) and the principle of mutuality in interest transactions between a firm and its partners. The judgment answered the reference question affirmatively in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
|
