1979 (6) TMI 130 - HC - Income Tax

Managing partner's salary from firm is firm income, not separate agricultural income per court ruling.

CV. Mulk Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, Kerala

The court held that the salary received by a partner of a firm for services rendered should be considered as part of the firm's income and not separately ... A Firm, Agricultural Income Tax Issues:Interpretation of agricultural income for assessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act during the years 1969-70 and 1970-71.Determining whether the salary received by a partner of a firm for services rendered to the firm should be calculated as agricultural income for assessment purposes.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of the salary received by the assessee, who was the managing partner of an estate, as agricultural income for assessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71. The assessee declared his share of income and loss from the estate in the respective years but the assessing officer included the salary received by the assessee as managing partner as part of his agricultural income. On appeal, the Appellate Authority directed to exclude the salary amount from the net agricultural income based on a previous court decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the State, holding that the remuneration paid to the managing partner should not be excluded from assessing the agricultural income. The questions referred to the court for determination revolved around the justification of including the salary as agricultural income and whether it was a mode of adjustment of the firm's income.The Tribunal relied on a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court and a subsequent Supreme Court decision to support its conclusion that the salary received by a partner of a firm for services rendered should be considered as part of the firm's income and not separately assessed. The court analyzed the legal position of a firm under the Indian Partnership Act, emphasizing that a partner in a partnership cannot be an employee of the partnership and that the salary received is a mode of adjustment in the partner's share of the firm's income. The Supreme Court's decision reinforced this principle, highlighting that a firm is not a legal person and any remuneration to a partner is essentially a division of profits, not a separate source of income.The court rejected the assessee's contention that the provisions of the Partnership Act allowed partners to receive remuneration subject to a contract between partners. It was clarified that any such contract should be in line with the Act's provisions, and the Supreme Court decision based on partnership law principles and jurisprudence should prevail. The court also dismissed the reliance on previous court decisions that were overruled by the Supreme Court's definitive judgment on the matter. Ultimately, the court answered the questions in favor of the revenue and against the assessee, upholding the inclusion of the managing partner's salary as agricultural income for assessment purposes.