Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus M/S C.S.I. CORPERT

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. M/S C.S.I. Corpert - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 265 of 1991 [2007] RD-AH 7875 (27 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Sushil Harkauli,J

Hon. Ajai Kumar Singh,J

We have heard learned counsel for the  petitioner.

The following question has been referred in the form of this reference:-

" Whether the Hon'ble I.T.A.T., is justified in law and on facts in holding that provisions of section 40(b) could not be invoked in the case for payment of Rs. 24,000/- as commission made to S/Shri V.K. Varshney and P.K. Varshney partners of the assessee firm?"

It appears that the case of the assessee was that there was a registered partnership firm in which there were eight partners.  Sri V.K. Varshney was partner in his individual capacity while the rest of the 7 were partners in their HUF capacity. Sri V.K. Varshney and  Sri P.K. Varshney were Kartas of their respective HUF.

Section 40 (b) prohibits deduction of payments of commission to any partner who is not a working partner in computing income under the head profits and gains of business or profession.

In the present case commission is said to have been paid to Sri V.K. Varshney and Sri P.K. Varshney.

In the case of Rashik Lal and Co. Vs. CIT (1998)229 ITR 458 the Supreme Court has held that a HUF directly or indirectly can not become partner of a firm because firm is an association of individuals. Thus it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is  individuals of HUF who indirectly become a partner in the firm in which the HUF is being said to be a partner.

In this view of the law, Sri V.K. Varshney and Sri P.K. Varshney would be held to be partners of the firm indirectly through their HUFs. It is not the case of the assessee that these are working partners and therefore the commission paid to them would not be deductable under Section 40 (b).

The reference is answered accordingly.

27.4.2007

SKS (265-91)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.