1963 (10) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee claimed expenses of Rs. 12,283 in the first year and Rs. 19,380 in the second year. Both these amounts of expenses included items of interest of Rs. 1,935 in the first year and Rs. 1,956 in the second year. These amounts of interest were paid by the assessee to the bank named Virjee and Company from which the assessee had borrowed money to finance the partnership firms. With the exception of these items of interest the Income-tax Officer disallowed the other expenses. The order of the Income-tax Officer was affirmed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal. The assessee took the matter in second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which held that the profits and gains earned from a partnership were to be ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e decision of the Calcutta High Court in Messrs. Ishwardas Subhkaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Income-tax Reference No. 38 of 1952, decided on 2nd June, 1953). With great respect to the Calcutta High Court, we are unable to accept the proposition of law laid down in Income-tax Reference No. 38 of 1952 as correct. It is not correct as a general legal proposition to state that a partner of 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 in" a proper case to claim a deduction provided he satisfies the taxing authority that such deduction represent....