9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (6) TMI 63 - HC - Income TaxPayments to partners weren t in their capacity as partners but were made for the specific services rendered by them - such payments by assesse firm co78ld not be disall0owed u/s 40(b).
Issues:
- Disallowance of payment to partner under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 1989-90. Analysis: 1. The tax case appeal was against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1989-90 disallowing a payment of Rs.1,30,000 to a partner under Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, directing deletion of the addition, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The main question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the payments to partners were not disallowed under Section 40(b) of the Act. 2. Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act specifies amounts not deductible for firms, including payments of remuneration to partners. The Act prohibits deductions for certain payments made to partners, such as salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration, if not in accordance with the partnership deed. The Act aims to prevent firms from diverting income to partners to reduce tax liability. 3. Referring to legal precedents, the court emphasized that payments to partners should be scrutinized based on whether the partner is under a legal obligation to provide services or capital. If a partner is not obligated to provide specific services, payments made as a quid pro quo for services rendered are permissible deductions for the firm. In this case, the payments to partners were for specific services rendered, not in their capacity as partners. 4. Following the decisions cited, the court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the payments made to the partner by the firm were for specific services rendered and not in their capacity as partners. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(b) of the Act was not justified. The court answered the question of law in the affirmative, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.
|
