1973 (3) TMI 9 - HC - Income Tax

Remuneration paid to Partners - Whether the remuneration paid from the firm as fixed by the Government was deductible in view of section 10(4)(b) of Indian Income-tax Act 1922 - As the partner receives his remuneration as an authorized controller and not as a partner. The provisos of section 10(4)(b) would not be applicable

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of payments made to partners under section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Interpretation of section 10(4)(b) regarding payments to partners acting in different capacities.
3. The impact of government-appointed management on the tax treatment of payments.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Payments Made to Partners Under Section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue was whether the sum of Rs. 28,422 paid to the partners, who were also members of the board of management, could be deducted under section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The section explicitly states that "nothing in clause (xv) of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorise any allowance in respect of any payment by way of interest, salary, commission or remuneration made by a firm to any partner of the firm."

2. Interpretation of Section 10(4)(b) Regarding Payments to Partners Acting in Different Capacities:
The court examined whether payments made to partners, who were also acting as members of the board of management appointed by the Government, fell under the purview of section 10(4)(b). The court noted that the section was worded generally to cover "any payment" by way of interest, salary, commission, or remuneration to "any partner" of the firm. This broad wording indicates that all such payments are covered, regardless of the capacity in which they were made.

3. The Impact of Government-Appointed Management on the Tax Treatment of Payments:
The court considered whether the payments made under the directions of the Government of India, rather than voluntarily by the firm, could be excluded from the restrictions of section 10(4)(b). The court held that the general wording of the section does not allow for such an exclusion. Payments made to partners, even if mandated by the government, are still considered payments to partners and thus fall under section 10(4)(b).

Separate Judgments:

Judgment by Mathur, Actg. C.J.:
Mathur, Actg. C.J., emphasized that the broad language of section 10(4)(b) covers all payments to partners, whether voluntary or mandated by the government. He concluded that the payments of Rs. 28,422 were disallowed under section 10(4)(b) and should be added to the firm's total income.

Judgment by T. S. Misra J.:
T. S. Misra J. provided a different perspective, arguing that the payments made to partners acting as government-appointed controllers or board members were not in their capacity as partners. He reasoned that these payments emanated from a different source-the order of the Central Government-and thus should not be disallowed under section 10(4)(b). He concluded that the payments were deductible while computing the firm's total taxable income.

Judgment by R. L. Gulati J.:
R. L. Gulati J. agreed with T. S. Misra J., albeit for different reasons. He argued that section 10(4)(b) was intended to prevent tax evasion through contractual payments between partners. Since the payments in question were mandated by the government and not by mutual consent of the partners, they should be considered business expenses deductible under section 10(2)(xv).

Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded in favor of the assessee, holding that the sum of Rs. 28,422 paid to partners for performing functions under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act was not inadmissible under section 10(4)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The court answered the question in the affirmative, allowing the deduction of these payments and awarding costs of Rs. 200 to the assessee.

← Previous Next →