9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of gift under Hindu law, Allowability of interest paid by firm to HUF, Applicability of Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act
In this case, the High Court of Allahabad was presented with a question regarding the validity of a gift made by Smt. Prakash Kaur to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the allowability of interest paid by the assessee-firm to the HUF. The main issue revolved around whether the sum of Rs. 35,000 gifted by Smt. Prakash Kaur to the HUF was valid under Hindu law and if the interest of Rs. 5,250 paid by the firm to the HUF was allowable for deduction. The court noted that Smt. Prakash Kaur, a partner of the assessee-firm, had gifted Rs. 35,000 to the HUF, and the interest payable on this amount was Rs. 5,250. Initially, the HUF had no amount to its credit, but the capital was later built up through blending of individual properties by coparceners. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the interest payment on the grounds that Smt. Prakash Kaur, being a female member, could not blend her individual property with that of the HUF, and thus, the gift was not valid. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pushpa Devi v. CIT, which affirmed that a female member could make a gift of her individual property to the HUF. Consequently, the court held that the money became that of the HUF upon the gift of Rs. 35,000, and since the loan was taken by the firm from the HUF, the interest payment was to the HUF, not Smt. Prakash Kaur. As per Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, interest payments to a partner of the firm are not allowable deductions, but in this case, the interest was paid to the HUF, not to Smt. Prakash Kaur, who was a partner. The court distinguished the present case from the case of CIT v. London Machinery Company, where partners acting as kartas of their HUF had deposited individual funds in the firm's accounts, leading to disallowance of interest under Section 40(b). In the current case, the creditor was the HUF, not Smt. Prakash Kaur, one of the partners, making the interest payment permissible. The court rejected the department's request for a supplementary statement, as no such case was raised earlier, and ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the interest payment and awarding costs to the assessee.
|
