1987 (9) TMI 20 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of interest paid to partners in a partnership firm.

The judgment pertains to a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the interpretation of section 40(b) in the context of deducting interest paid to partners in a partnership firm. The main question was whether only the net amount or the gross amount of interest paid to each partner should be deducted in computing the assessee-firm's income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business" for the relevant accounting period. The assessee firm, comprising six partners, argued that only the difference between the interest paid and received from the same partners should be considered for deduction. The Income-tax Officer rejected this contention, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld it, leading to the reference by the Revenue.

The judgment analyzed the situation where interest paid by the firm was to the same partner from whom interest was received, emphasizing the difference in the amounts paid and received. Referring to a precedent in CIT v. Kailash Motors [1982] 134 ITR 312 (All), the court highlighted that only the net amount paid by the firm to its partner, after adjusting the interest paid by the partner to the firm, could be disallowed under section 40(b). The court noted that there was no dissenting view in similar cases and no contrary decisions were cited. Another case, Sri Ram Mahadeo Prasad v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 149 (All), was discussed, but it was found consistent with the interpretation in Kailash Motors case.

The judgment also considered the amendment to section 40(b) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, which added Explanation 1 to clarify the construction of the clause. The court observed that the main part of the clause remained unchanged, and the addition of the Explanation supported the interpretation that only the net amount should be deducted. Consequently, the court answered the reference against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's view as justified. No costs were awarded in the case.