2014 (2) TMI 268 - HC - Income Tax

Effect of retrospective amendment in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act Held that - The decision COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus OMPRAKASH R CHAUDHARY 2014 (2) TMI 120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed - amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act by virtue of Finance Act, 2010 would apply to pending proceedings also the question is not required to be entertained. Deletion of disallowance of remuneration paid to partner of assessee Held that - The CIT (Appeals) concluded that though initially the partnership agreement did not have a term containing payment of the partners subject to the limits of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year under consideration, the partners had already entered into a supplementary agreement making such a provision - there was no dispute about the genuineness of the payment and the same was within the limits of section 40(b) of the Act - the Tribunal committed no error in confirming the view of the CIT (Appeals) deleting such disallowance Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of retrospective application of an amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of remuneration to a partner of the assessee firm.

Interpretation of Retrospective Application of Amendment:
The High Court considered the appeal by the Revenue against the Tribunal's judgment regarding the retrospective application of an amendment to section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had extended the permissible date of payment from the last date of the previous year to the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act, resulting in the deletion of a substantial amount. The Revenue argued against this interpretation. However, the Court noted that a Division Bench decision had already ruled that the said amendment applied to pending proceedings as well. Therefore, the Court held that the question regarding the retrospective application of the amendment did not need further consideration.

Disallowance of Remuneration to Partner:
The second issue involved the disallowance of Rs.17.4 lakhs by the Assessing Officer as remuneration paid to a partner of the assessee firm. The CIT (Appeals) had deleted this disallowance, a decision upheld by the Tribunal. The CIT (Appeals) found that although the partnership agreement initially did not include a provision for payment of partners within the limits of the Income Tax Act, a supplementary agreement was entered into by the partners for the assessment year in question, which complied with the Act's requirements. The Court noted that the payment was genuine and within the limits of section 40(b) of the Act. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal did not err in upholding the CIT (Appeals) decision to delete the disallowance. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision on both issues. The retrospective application of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) was deemed valid based on a previous Division Bench ruling, and the disallowance of remuneration to a partner was found to be correctly deleted by the CIT (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal.