1986 (9) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Distinction between payments made to partners in their capacity as partners and in other capacities.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 40,000 paid to two partners, Sri M. Venkataramana and Sri Laxminarayana, was allowable in view of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The partnership firm, engaged in film production, claimed deductions for payments made to these partners for their professional services. The Income-tax Officer disallowed these deductions under section 40(b), which prohibits deductions for payments of interest, salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration made by a firm to its partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal allowed the deductions, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Distinction between payments made to partners in their capacity as partners and in other capacities

The court examined whether the payments were made to the partners in their capacity as partners or in another capacity. The managing partner, M. Venkataramana, was paid Rs. 25,000 for writing a story, and S. Laxminarayana alias Bapu was paid Rs. 15,000 for directing a film. The court noted that these services were not part of their obligations as partners. The court emphasized that section 40(b) aims to prevent the diversion of a firm's income to partners to reduce tax liability. However, payments for services that partners are not legally obliged to render (e.g., writing a story or directing a film) do not fall under section 40(b).

The court referenced several judgments, including CIT v. Gemini Productions and CIT v. Ram Laxman Sugar Mills, which supported the view that payments made to partners for services rendered in a capacity other than as partners are permissible deductions. The court concluded that the sums paid to Venkataramana and Bapu were for services they were not obliged to provide as partners, thus not attracting the provisions of section 40(b).

Conclusion:

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, allowing the deductions and ruling that section 40(b) did not apply to the payments made to the partners for their professional services. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.