9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding deduction of payments made by a firm to its partners. - Whether payments made by the firm to the members of the board of management are admissible as deductions under section 10(2)(xv) or barred by section 10(4)(b). Analysis: The High Court of ALLAHABAD addressed a reference from the Delhi Bench (B) of the Appellate Tribunal concerning the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved an unregistered firm engaged in sugar manufacturing. The firm made payments to members of the board of management, which the Income-tax Officer disallowed as deductions. The Tribunal, however, allowed the deductions based on the argument that the payments were made by the Central Government under statutory powers, thus not falling under section 10(4)(b) barring such payments. The Tribunal emphasized the avoidance of double taxation for unregistered firms and partners, leading to the deletion of the additions from the firm's income for the relevant years. The Tribunal referred two questions to the High Court, seeking clarification on the admissibility of the payments under section 10(4)(b) for the respective assessment years. The High Court analyzed section 10(4)(b) which prohibits allowances for payments made by a firm to its partners, including interest, salary, commission, or remuneration. The Court highlighted that a firm is essentially a composition of its partners and any payments to partners reduce assessable profits. Despite one partner being taxed on the remuneration, the Court held that the firm cannot claim deductions for payments to partners, as per the clear provisions of section 10(4)(b). The Court emphasized the scheme of the Act to prevent both profit reduction by firms and double taxation of partners' income. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to allow deductions for the payments made to the board members was not justifiable under section 10(4)(b). The Court answered both questions in the negative, favoring the Commissioner of Income-tax and disallowing the deductions claimed by the firm. The judgment highlighted the clear and unambiguous nature of the bar imposed by section 10(4)(b, emphasizing that statutory powers or government directives did not exempt the firm from the prohibition on such payments to partners.
|
