9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the commission paid to Janata Film Distributors could be added back in computing the firm's income under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the payment of Rs. 1,25,000 to a retiring partner was an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Commission Paid to Janata Film Distributors The Tribunal referred to the court the question of whether the commission paid to Janata Film Distributors, a proprietary concern of a partner, could be added back in computing the firm's income under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 74,381, considering it as a payment to a partner, which is prohibited under section 40(b). The Tribunal observed that the disallowance under section 40(b) aims to tax the firm on its entire income and prevent the diversion of profits to partners. However, the Tribunal noted that the commission was for specific services rendered by Janata Film Distributors under a separate agreement, and the payment was made before the accrual of income for earning the income. The Tribunal concluded that the payment was not made to the partner in his capacity as a partner but in some other capacity, thus representing an expenditure necessary for earning the income. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view and cited the Madras High Court decision in CIT v. Gemini Productions [1977] 110 ITR 847 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in CIT v. Chitra Kalpana [1988] 169 ITR 678, which held that section 40(b) applies only if the payment is made out of the firm's income to a partner. Since Janata Film Distributors retained the commission out of gross collections and transferred the net amount to the assessee-firm, the commission never represented the firm's income. Therefore, the court answered the first question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission paid to Janata Film Distributors was not hit by section 40(b). Issue 2: Payment to Retiring Partner The Tribunal also referred the question of whether the payment of Rs. 1,25,000 to a retiring partner was an allowable expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the payment, considering it as capital expenditure. The Tribunal found that the payment was for the loss of profits that would have accrued to the retiring partner and for the loss of income accruing to Janata Film Distributors by way of commission. The Tribunal, following the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision in Kartar Singh Duggal v. CIT [1972] Taxation 21, held that the payment represented revenue expenditure. The court, however, distinguished between the payment for relinquishing the partner's right, title, and interest in the partnership firm and the payment for surrendering sub-distribution rights. The court held that the payment for relinquishing the partner's rights in the firm was capital expenditure, while the payment for surrendering sub-distribution rights was revenue expenditure. The court apportioned Rs. 75,000 towards the relinquishment of partnership rights and Rs. 50,000 towards the surrender of sub-distribution rights. Accordingly, the court answered the second question in two parts: - The payment of Rs. 50,000 for surrendering sub-distribution rights was considered revenue expenditure and allowable under section 37(1). - The payment of Rs. 75,000 for relinquishing partnership rights was considered capital expenditure and not allowable under section 37(1). Conclusion: The court answered the first question in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission paid to Janata Film Distributors was not hit by section 40(b). The court answered the second question partly in favor of the assessee and partly in favor of the Revenue, distinguishing between revenue and capital expenditure. No order as to costs was made.
|
