TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court clarifies tax treatment for non-resident partner share income</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Srinivas And Company</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Srinivas And Company - [1996] 219 ITR 636, 134 CTR 445 Issues:Interpretation of section 182(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the tax payable by a non-resident partner in a partnership firm in relation to his share income and other income.Analysis:The case involved a non-resident partner in a partnership firm, with share income from multiple sources. The primary issue was determining the applicable tax rate on the non-resident partner's share income from the assessee-firm. The Income-tax Officer included all incomes of the partner to calculate the tax rate, leading to an appeal by the assessee. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the decision, stating that the tax rate should only apply to the share income from the assessee-firm.The key provision in question was section 182(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section mandates that the tax on a non-resident partner's share income in a firm should be assessed at the rate applicable if assessed on the partner personally. The court emphasized that this provision focuses on the share income of the non-resident partner in the firm, not his total income from all sources. The court highlighted that the non-resident partner undergoes separate assessments for share income from the firm and individual income from other sources.Referring to the precedent set by Gnanam and Sons v. CIT [1961] 43 ITR 485 (Mad), the court reiterated that the tax payable by a non-resident partner is only on the share income from the firm, not on his total income. The Supreme Court's affirmation of this decision further solidified the interpretation that the tax rate should apply solely to the share income from the partnership firm. The court dismissed arguments based on a circular from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and an author's opinion, stating they were not binding and contrary to the clear language of section 182(3).Ultimately, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the tax rate applicable to the non-resident partner's share income from the assessee-firm should not consider his total income. The judgment favored the assessee, affirming that the rate of tax should only be based on the share income from the partnership firm, as per the provisions of section 182(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 