9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether salary paid to a person by a firm in which he represented his joint family could be disallowed under section 40(b) in computing the income of the firm. Analysis: The appeal raised the issue of whether the salary paid to three partners, who represented their respective Hindu undivided families in the firm, could be disallowed under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Officer had disallowed the salaries paid to these partners, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the provisions of section 40(b) could not be applied as the payment of salary could not be regarded as salary paid to partners, as they were assessed in their individual capacity. The Revenue contended that the salary paid to the partners should be regarded as payment to the partner within the scope of section 67. The assessee relied on previous decisions stating that salary paid to an individual while representing the joint family in the firm cannot be disallowed. The main argument put forth by the assessee was that the Explanation introduced to section 40(b) recognized the representative capacity of the person who was a partner in a firm, and therefore, the payment made to him in a different capacity could not be disallowed under section 40(b. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the Explanation to section 40(b) referred only to the payment of interest and could not be applied to payment of salary. The Tribunal had to resolve the conflict between the two decisions and determine the applicability of section 40(b) to the salaries paid to the partners. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and observed that the three individuals were paid salaries in their individual capacity while they became partners only as kartas of their respective joint families. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision that highlighted the transformation in legal position brought about by the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, indicating that the salary income derived by the individuals in their individual capacity was in conformity with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal further delved into the rationale behind section 40(b) and concluded that the salary derived by a partner in his individual capacity could not be regarded as a share of income derived from the firm. Moreover, the Tribunal considered the legislative intent behind the Explanation introduced to section 40(b) and noted that the Parliament had recognized the representative capacity of a partner. The Tribunal referred to various High Court decisions that supported the distinction between an individual and a karta of a joint family regarding payments made in different capacities. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the disallowance under section 40(b) could not be upheld in the current case, as the provisions of section 40(b) could not be applied to the facts presented. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal.
|
