SUVIDHA ENTERPRISES,BORIVALI WEST MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32(1), BANDRA EAST MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4908/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2026AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the partners' roles as authorized signatories for bank transactions and their involvement in administrative functions like signing vouchers were sufficient to establish them as working partners. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee-firm paid remuneration of Rs. 40 Lacs each to two partners. The AO disallowed this amount, alleging the partners were not working partners based on their educational qualifications and limited involvement in business operations.

What were the issues?

Whether the remuneration paid to partners can be disallowed if they are not considered 'working partners' despite performing administrative and signatory functions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.4908/MUM/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s Suvidha Enterprises ACIT - Circle 32(1) 1601, 16th Floor, Jalaram Heights Room No. 702, 7th Floor बिधम/ Ganjawala Lane, Borivali (W), KautilyaBhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Block, Vs. Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AARFS-6316-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Mahadev Khandelwal (Adv.) – Ld. AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh.Harendra Verma (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 10-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 11-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 05.06.2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 21.12.2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is disallowance of remuneration of Rs.40 Lacs paid to each of the two partners of the assessee-firm.

Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. 3. From the record, it emerges that the assessee-firm is a partnership firm having four partners including Mrs. Geeta Ajay Dave W/o Shri Ajay Dave and Mrs. Ramila Shantilal Kagmalaw/o Shri Shantilal Kagmala. The firm paid salary of Rs.40 Lacs to each of the two partners. The AO questioned the same, inter-alia, on the ground that educational qualification of Mrs. Geeta Ajay Dave was not directly related to the assessee’s nature of business being performed and she was havinglow familiarity with the nature of assessee’s business. The same emanated from her recorded statement. The other partner did not appear for statement but she was mentioned to be just doing the site visits. Accordingly, a conclusion was drawn by Ld. AO that the two lady partners were not working partners and were not rendering any service. The assessee opposed the same and drew attention to the fact that in the recorded statement, Mrs. Geeta Ajay Dave specifically affirmed that she was working for the firm and was doing marketing and administration work. The lady partners were signatory for banking transactions and carried out administrative functions including signing of vouchers and allotment letters etc. on behalf of assessee-firm. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.80 Lacs while finalizing the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) endorsed the action of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

The undisputed facts that emergesfrom the case records are that the assessee-firm has four partners including Mrs. Geeta Ajay Dave W/o Shri Ajay Dave and Mrs. Ramila Shantilal Kagmala w/o Shri Shantilal Kagmala. The other two partners are HUF entities only which are separate taxable entities and apparently cannot run the affairs of the assessee-firm. It is nowhere been shown that the Karta of two HUF entities have participated in managing the business affairs of the assessee-firm. No remuneration has been paid to HUF entities. It is also undisputed fact that the payment of remuneration to the two partners is in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed and the assessee has duly fulfilled the requirements of Sec.40(b) to lay claim on this deduction. The computation of salary, in terms of Sec.40(b) has been placed on Page No.367 of the paper-book which would reveal that the computation is in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and the quantum of renumeration is within permissible limits only. Both the partners have offered the remuneration as business income in their respective income tax returns. The impugned disallowance as made by Ld. AO would be nothing but double disallowance i.e., once by not allowing deduction thereof to the assessee-firm and at the same time, taxing the remuneration in the individual hands of the two partners. As per thescheme of Sec.40(b) of the Act, the remuneration must be paid only to working partners and the remuneration should be authorized by the partnership deed. Further, the remuneration should be within the permissible limits. There is no other requirement. In the present case,

the only reason to disallow the remuneration is the allegation of Ld. AO that the two lady partners were not working partners despite the fact that these two partners were authorized signatories in the bank account of the assessee-firm and signing vouchers and allotment letters etc.on behalf of the assessee firm. The said activities, in our considered opinion, is sufficient enough to hold that the two lady partners acted as working partners only. Therefore, the disallowance as made by Ld. AO is not justified at all and accordingly, we delete the same. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 11th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANKIT, PS Dated: 11-06-2026 आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त/CIT 4. ववभागीयप्रवतवनवि/DR 5. गार्डफाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 40(b)

All 428 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →