1980 (8) TMI 77 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the interest amount of Rs. 7,777 paid by the assessee-firm to the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Sajjandas Jwaladas was allowable as a deduction u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Summary:

Issue 1: Allowability of Interest Deduction u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

The High Court of Gujarat addressed the question of whether the interest amount of Rs. 7,777 paid by the assessee-firm to the HUF of Sajjandas Jwaladas was allowable as a deduction u/s 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee-firm, a registered firm carrying on the business of adat in cloth, had three partners, including Sajjandas Jwaladas, who joined the firm as the karta of his HUF. During the relevant accounting year, the assessee-firm paid interest to the HUF, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed u/s 40(b). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision, but the Tribunal allowed the deduction, following its earlier decision for the assessment year 1971-72.

The court examined the provisions of the Income-tax Act, particularly sections 28, 29, and 40(b). It noted that while interest paid by a firm on business-utilized money is generally deductible, s. 40(b) disallows deductions for payments made to partners, including interest. The court emphasized that an HUF cannot be a partner in a firm; only an individual can be a partner. Therefore, the interest paid to the HUF, which was a creditor of the firm, did not fall within the ambit of s. 40(b).

The court reviewed several precedents, including decisions from the Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Allahabad High Courts. It agreed with the reasoning that s. 40(b) applies to payments made to partners, irrespective of their capacity. However, if the HUF is the creditor, interest paid to it is not disallowable under s. 40(b).

In conclusion, the court held that the interest amount of Rs. 7,777 paid to the HUF of Sajjandas Jwaladas was allowable as a deduction since it was paid to a creditor who was not a partner of the firm. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.