Stock loss, welfare fund deduction, and partner interest set-off under section 40(b) were resolved on precedent.

Stock written off was not allowable where the loss arose from violation of law and lawful confiscation of the goods, so the claim failed. Contribution to a welfare fund was also held not deductible under section 37(1), following binding precedent on business expenditure. On the computation under section 40(b), interest due from partners to the firm could be set off against interest paid or payable to the partners, and the disallowance had to be worked accordingly. The first two issues were decided for the Revenue and the third for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of stock written off by the assessee was an allowable deduction; (ii) whether the contribution made to the welfare fund was deductible under section 37(1); (iii) whether the interest due by the partners to the firm was liable to be set off against the interest paid or payable to the partners for computing the disallowance under section 40(b).

Issue (i): Whether the value of stock written off by the assessee was an allowable deduction.

Analysis: The stock loss claim was held to be covered by the principle that where the assessee's conduct involved violation of law and the confiscation of the goods was properly made, the resulting loss could not be treated as an allowable deduction.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the contribution made to the welfare fund was deductible under section 37(1).

Analysis: The claim was treated as covered by binding precedent holding such contribution not deductible under the provision governing business expenditure.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the interest due by the partners to the firm was liable to be set off against the interest paid or payable to the partners for computing the disallowance under section 40(b).

Analysis: The computation of disallowance was held to permit the set-off of interest due from the partners against interest payable to them, as the matter was covered by precedent.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered issue-wise, with the first two questions decided for the Revenue and the third surviving issue decided for the assessee.

---