TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (3) TMI 1
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-car, travelling expenses and interest. The Income-tax Officer, Hazaribagh, allowed the claim for interest as a permissible deduction and disallowed the rest. In the view of the Income-tax Officer, since the respondent did not carry on any independent business, the amounts, except interest, were not claimable by the respondent on his own account; if at all, the amounts should have been claimed as business expenses incurred in the accounts of the four firms. For the assessment year 1956-57 the respondent declared Rs. 53,540 as his share of the profits in the four firms and claimed an aggregate amount of Rs. 19,380 as admissible deduction on various grounds including Rs. 1,956 as interest paid by him. The Income-tax Officer allowed the cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him and is on that account liable to be computed under section 10, and it is a matter of no moment that the total profits of the partnership were computed in the manner provided by section 10 of the Income-tax Act and allowances admissible to the partnership in the computation of the profits and gains were taken into account. Income of the partnership carrying on business is computed as business income. The share of the partner in the taxable profits of the registered firms liable to be included under section 23(5)(a)(ii) in his total income is still received as income from business carried on by him. Counsel for the Commissioner accepted, and in our judgment counsel was right in so doing, that the share of the respondent from the profits o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e-tax the High Court of Bombay held that it is not correct as a general legal proposition that a partner in a registered firm is not entitled to claim any deduction against the share of the profits included in his total income, the share having been arrived at on the assessment of the firm with regard to its profits. It would be open to the partner to claim a deduction provided he satisfies the taxing authority that such deduction represents necessary expenditure, the expenditure being incurred in order to enable him to earn the profits which are being subjected to tax. In Basantlal Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax the High Court of Madras held that in determining the income of an assessee who is a partner, deduction under section 10(2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded family entered into a partnership agreement with third parties for the purpose of carrying on a rice mill business. It was not possible for any of the members of the family to attend personally to that business and, therefore, the family employed a munim to look after its interest. Salary paid to the munim was claimed as an allowance in determining the taxable income out of the share of the partnership income. Chakravartti C. J., delivering the judgment of the court, was of the opinion that, since the munim did not look after the interest of the assessee in the firm's business, but only as a servant of the assessee, the amount paid to the munim was not an allowance admissible in determining the taxable income. In any event, observed the....