9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dispute regarding allocation of share amongst partners of the firm. 2. Interpretation of provisions of section 32AB and section 182. 3. Justifiability of adding back deduction allowed under section 32AB for share allocation. 4. Application of proviso to section 32AB to prevent double deduction. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI-D involves a dispute regarding the allocation of share amongst the partners of the firm. The issue arises from the deduction claimed under section 32AB, which was initially allowed by the Assessing Officer but later added back for the purpose of share allocation. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision based on a previous decision and directed the Assessing Officer not to include the deduction under section 32AB in the share allocation, leading to the revenue's appeal against this decision. The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of section 32AB, which allows for a deduction from the profits and gains of business or profession for the firm, subject to certain conditions. The Finance Act of 1987 introduced a proviso stating that the deduction under section 32AB shall not be allowed in the computation of income of any partner of the firm. This proviso aims to prevent double deduction, first in the hands of the firm and then in the hands of the partners. The Tribunal analyzed the language of the proviso and emphasized that it pertains to the computation of income of the partner, not the firm itself. Furthermore, the Tribunal delved into the provisions of section 182, which governs the assessment of registered firms. Section 182 mandates the inclusion of each partner's share in the income of the firm in his total income for tax assessment. The Tribunal highlighted that once the income of the firm is assessed, the share income must be allocated among the partners according to section 182. Any deduction claimed by the partner under section 32AB is prohibited to prevent double deduction, as the deduction has already been allowed to the firm. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions where similar interpretations were made, supporting the view that the proviso to section 32AB aims to prevent double deduction and should not empower the Assessing Officer to act contrary to the provisions of section 182. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to allocate the income of the firm among the partners without adding back the deduction allowed under section 32AB. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision of the lower authority.
|
