2012 (11) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pune highway and he was admitted in Sancheti Hospital, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. A copy of Police Panchanama is enclosed herewith. In accident, a severe injury taken place to spiral cervical cord with quadrupasesis. As a result, the patient was in come for weeks together, his physical position was that he was not able to move or make movement of his hands. He was totally bed ridden and was also suffering from bedsore of severe pains. A medical certificate issued by Sancheti Hospital, Pune bearing No.652 dt. 6.6.2006 is also enclosed herewith. Besides above, Shri Shrikant R.Pise was admitted in Barshi Maternity and General Cooperative Hopsital since 9.8.2006 to till this date. He is under the treatment of Dr.B.M.Nene, Chief Physician of the said hospital. Medical certificate dt. 21.3.2007 is also enclosed herewith. In addition to that the appellant's father Shri Ramakant Pise aged 66 years, severe diabetic patient. He is a patient of both kidney failure and on regular dialysis. He was also admitted in Barshi Maternity and General Cooperative Hospital, Barshi, in the month of December and is under the further treatment with Dr.B.S.Kollur, Nephrologist, since Jan. 2007 onwards. Ours is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee may please be accepted. 5. At the outset of hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative pointed out that Ground No.2 is not pressed. So the same is dismissed as not pressed. 6. The remaining first issue is with regards to deduction of Rs.1,78,582/- on account of depreciation and petrol expenses of vehicle. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is a partner of M/s. S.P.Wines and was maintaining a vehicle for himself. He observed that there was no nexus between the remuneration received and maintenance of vehicle and depreciation thereon. According to the Assessing Officer, the expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee on account of vehicle were not allowable. Accordingly, he added Rs.1,78,582/- to the income of the assessee which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 6.1. Stand of the assessee is that he is a working partner in M/s.S.P.Wines, a partnership firm, and deriving income from interest on capital and also remuneration from the said firm. For the year in question, the assessee brought to tax the interest on capital of Rs.8,033/- and remuneration of Rs.83,713/-. Out of the aforesaid income, the assessee claimed depreciation on motor car of Rs.1,47,750/- a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d upon by the contesting parties. These cases inter-alia show that a firm can validly enter into an agreement with a partner regarding purchase and sale of assets etc.[Kaluram Puranmal; Chase Trading Co.]. Further it has been held that whenever the field is occupied by the tax law, the provision contained therein will become applicable, but where the field is left vacant, we will have to take assistance from the provisions contained in the Partnership Act for filling the vacuum under the tax law. [K. Kulakutty]. In so far as the issue before us is concerned, a firm and its partners are assessable separately on their total income in their names, notwithstanding the position of law under the Partnership Act that a firm is a compendium or the collective name of the partners. Thus, in so far as the taxation is concerned, the firm is not a passthrough vehicle. It is a translucent vehicle, as only the salary and interest paid to the partners are taxable under Section 28(v) as business income. It has been so provided because there cannot be really be a relationship of employer and employee or debtor or creditor between the firm on one hand and the partners on the other hand. Even earlier,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....expenditure or not, it has been held in the case of Hoshang D. Nanavati (supra) that section 14A deals only with the expenditure and not any statutory allowance admissible to the assessee. The decision has been arrived at after considering the decision in the case of Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 314 / 182 Taxman 319 (SC). The ld. CIT (DR) has not been able to displace the ratio of these cases. Thus, on consideration, we find that section 14A uses the words "expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income". A statutory allowance under section 32 is not an expenditure. Therefore, we are in agreement with the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Hoshang D. Nanavati (supra). 9. Question referred to us is answered accordingly. The Division Bench shall dispose of the appeal in conformity with this decision." We find that the CIT(A) at relevant point of time was not having the benefit of the Special Bench decision. So in the interest of justice we restore this issue to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per law and fact including Special Bench decision in the case of Vishnu Anant Mahajan (supra). 7. Th....