9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 22 of the Income Tax Act regarding inclusion of notional income from house property used by a partner of a firm in the total income of the partner.
Summary: The High Court of Karnataka addressed the question of whether the notional income from a house property owned by a partner of a firm, and used in the firm's business, should be included in the total income of the partner. The property in question was used by the firm for its business during the relevant year, free of rent. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the assessment to include the annual letting value in the partner's individual assessment, which was objected to by the assessee. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) upheld the assessee's claim, leading to an appeal by the Department to the Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the AAC's decision, prompting the reference to the High Court. The main issue was whether the use of the premises by a firm for its business benefits the owner who is also a partner of the firm, allowing for exemption u/s 22 of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act were analyzed, particularly focusing on Section 22 concerning income from house property. The Court emphasized that the owner becomes liable under the head "Income from house property" unless the property is used for the owner's own business or profession. The Court considered the Gujarat High Court's decision in a similar case, where it was held that if a property owned by an assessee is occupied for the purpose of his business or if a property owned by a firm is used for its business, the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 22. However, the Karnataka High Court disagreed with this reasoning and held that the section should be strictly construed. The Court cited previous decisions supporting the view that property owned by a firm is taxed in the firm's assessment, not in the assessment of its partners. Therefore, the Court concluded that the annual letting value of the property should be included in the assessment of the assessee for the relevant year, rejecting the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was entitled to exemption u/s 22. In conclusion, the Court answered the question of law in the affirmative, stating that the annual letting value of the property in question is liable to be included in the assessment of the assessee for the year in question.
|
