Tax Tribunal Upholds Deductions: Rs. 2.4L as Partner Remuneration & Rs. 3.83L Interest on Borrowed Funds Confirmed.

The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the AO to permit the deduction of Rs. 2,40,000 as remuneration to partners, finding the payment within statutory limits and the partners as working partners. Additionally, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,83,623 in interest on borrowed amounts, noting the consistency in treatment and reduction in partners' debit balances.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of salary paid to partners.
2. Disallowance of interest on borrowed amounts diverted to partners for non-business purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Salary Paid to Partners:
The assessee contested the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain the disallowance of Rs. 2,40,000 paid as salary to partners. The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed this amount under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the grounds that the partnership deed did not specify the names of working partners and the salary paid was not in accordance with the deed. The partnership deed mentioned a remuneration of Rs. 1,20,000 per annum for working partners, but Rs. 60,000 per annum was paid to each of four partners, while one partner received no salary.

Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance, noting that the partnership deed did not specify the partners as working partners and the salary paid was not in accordance with the deed. The CIT(A) cited Board's Circular No. 739, which mandates that post-1996-97, no deduction under section 40(b)(v) is admissible unless the partnership deed specifies the remuneration payable to each working partner or the manner of quantifying such remuneration.

The Tribunal, however, found that the partnership deed authorized the payment of remuneration to all partners, who were considered working partners, and the remuneration paid was within the maximum amount admissible under the Act. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Gopal Dass Kulwant Rai v. ITO, which held that payment of remuneration less than the maximum statutory limit does not violate statutory provisions. The Tribunal also rejected the Revenue's objection regarding the non-mentioning of specific names of working partners in the deed, citing the decision in Tulsi Ram Tej Chand's case, which stated that non-mentioning of names does not disentitle the firm from deduction if the partners are working partners.

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of remuneration amounting to Rs. 2,40,000 paid to four working partners and directed the AO to allow this deduction.

2. Disallowance of Interest on Borrowed Amounts Diverted to Partners for Non-Business Purposes:
The Revenue's appeal challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 3,83,623 as interest on borrowed amounts allegedly diverted to partners for non-business purposes. The AO had observed that the assessee paid interest on deposits and bank loans but had also diverted borrowed funds to partners, resulting in a debit balance of Rs. 24,75,101 in the partners' capital accounts. The AO disallowed the interest on the grounds that the borrowed amounts were not utilized for the assessee's business.

The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that the debit balance in the partners' capital accounts had decreased compared to earlier years and that no disallowance was made in those years. The CIT(A) referenced the ITAT, Calcutta Bench decision in Kesar Lal Chand Lal v. ITO, which held that if partners' withdrawals are less than the profits earned, no part of the borrowing can be considered diverted to the partners' accounts. The CIT(A) also cited the ITAT, Chandigarh Bench decision in Malwa Cotton Spinning Mills v. ACIT, which supported the assessee's case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the debit balance in the partners' capital accounts had decreased during the assessment year and that no fresh loans were taken. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court decision in CIT v. Sri Dev Enterprises, which emphasized consistency in the Revenue's approach and held that no disallowance could be made if interest was not disallowed in earlier years on the same balance brought forward.

The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction of remuneration paid to partners and upheld the deletion of the disallowance of interest on borrowed amounts.

---