1982 (1) TMI 58 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of the applicability of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to disallow salary, interest, and bonus paid to a partner in a firm who is also a karta of his Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).

Judgment Details:

Assessment Year 1966-67 (ITR 131/75):
The court considered whether the amounts paid to S. K. Sanghi, a partner and karta of his HUF, were allowable as revenue expenditure of the firm, Sanghi Motors. The court upheld the disallowance of salary and interest paid to Sanghi under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Assessment Year 1967-68 (ITR 134/75):
The court examined the disallowance of salary and interest paid to S. K. Sanghi by Sanghi Motors. It was held that these amounts were not allowable as revenue expenditure of the firm under section 40(b) of the Act.

Assessment Year 1968-69 (ITR 191/75):
The court deliberated on the disallowance of salary, bonus, and interest on deposits paid to Shri Suresh Kumar Sanghi by Sanghi Motors. The court affirmed that these amounts were not allowable as revenue expenditure of the firm under section 40(b) of the Act.

Assessment Year 1969-70 (ITR 20/75):
The court analyzed the disallowance of salary, interest on deposits, and bonus paid to Shri Suresh Kumar Sanghi by Sanghi Motors. It was concluded that these amounts were not allowable as revenue expenditure of the firm under section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The court emphasized that the provisions of section 40(b) apply to disallow payments made by a firm to its partners, irrespective of the capacity in which the partner receives the payment. The court rejected the argument that the disallowance should be restricted to cases where the payments are taxable in the hands of the individual partner. The court clarified the distinction between sections 40 and 67 of the Act, highlighting that section 40 deals with the assessment of a firm, while section 67 pertains to the allocation of income among partners.

In conclusion, the court upheld the disallowance of payments made to the partner in his individual capacity, affirming the applicability of section 40(b) and ruling in favor of the revenue. The court referred to previous judgments supporting this interpretation and directed the assessee to pay the costs of the respondent.