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>Interest payments to partners as HUF kartas disallowed as deductions under Income Tax Act.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus London Machinery Co.</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus London Machinery Co. - [1979] 117 ITR 111, 10 CTR 301, 1 TAXMANN 24 Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the payment of interest to partners acting as kartas of their respective HUFs.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961The assessee, a registered firm with seven partners, included three partners acting as kartas of their respective Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs). These three karta-partners deposited personal funds in the firm's accounts and received interest payments amounting to Rs. 20,996. The firm claimed this amount as a business expenditure deduction, which the ITO disallowed. The Tribunal held that since the kartas were partners representing their HUFs, the interest paid to them in their individual capacity could not be considered a payment to a partner of the firm, thus directing the deletion of the amounts in the firm's assessment.The High Court examined whether Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, applied to these interest payments. Section 40(b) prohibits deductions for any payment of interest, salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration made by the firm to any partner. The court noted that the term 'partner' is defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and only 'persons' can be partners. It was established that a HUF cannot enter into a partnership; only the karta, in his personal capacity, can be a partner.The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Firm Bhagat Ram Mohanlal v. CEPT and CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co., which clarified that the karta alone is the partner in the firm, not the other HUF members. The court emphasized that Section 40(b) is absolute and does not distinguish the capacity in which the payment is made to the partner. Payments to a partner, whether from personal or HUF funds, are considered payments to the partner.The court rejected the assessee's argument that the capacity in which the partner received the payment should be considered. It held that the payment to a partner, regardless of the source of funds, falls within the purview of Section 40(b) and is inadmissible as a deduction in the firm's assessment.Conclusion:The court answered the question of law in the negative, ruling in favor of the department and against the assessee. The interest paid by the firm to the partners, whether from their HUF funds or individual funds, is considered a payment to the partners and is disallowed as a deduction under Section 40(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Commissioner was entitled to costs assessed at Rs. 200.
TaxTMI 