9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the salaries of the directors were earned by detriment to joint family assets and assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family? Analysis: The case involved a joint Hindu family carrying on business where a partial partition occurred, leading to the business being taken over by a partnership firm and later by a private limited company. The directors, who were erstwhile partners, received remuneration based on the articles of association, including monthly salary, allowances, and sitting fees for board meetings. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially held that the salaries accrued to the directors from their shareholding should be included in the income of the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Appeals were made, leading to a reference to the High Court. The High Court referred to a previous decision involving the same assessee where it was held that the salary received by the directors was the income of the HUF. However, in subsequent assessment years, the controversy resurfaced. The ITO added the directors' salaries to the HUF income, but the Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) and Tribunal held that the salaries were individual income of the directors, not the HUF. The Tribunal based its decision on the services rendered by the directors in their individual capacity and their qualifications, experience, and technical knowledge. The Supreme Court's test regarding remuneration received by a coparcener of an HUF was referenced, emphasizing whether the income was a return on family funds invested in the business or compensation for services rendered by the individual coparcener. The Tribunal found that the remuneration paid to the directors was for services rendered in their individual capacity, not to the detriment of the HUF, as dividends were being received on the shares. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, stating that the remuneration was for special services rendered based on qualifications and technical knowledge possessed by the directors, aligning with the Supreme Court's principles. In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in favor of the assessee, stating that the remuneration received by the directors was not taxable in the hands of the HUF. The High Court also awarded costs to the assessee and indicated that the decision would govern a related income tax reference case.
|
