COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR vs. RAMNIKLAL KOTHARI

CIVIL APPEAL No. 575/1966Supreme Court[1969] 3 S.C.R. 86007 March 1969Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, A.N. GROVER COMMISSIONER OF INCOME5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent, Ramniklal Kothari, was a partner in four different firms and declared his share of profits for assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57. He claimed deductions for salary and bonus to staff, motor-car maintenance and depreciation, travelling expenses, and interest. The Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed only the claim for interest. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, set aside these orders and remanded the cases for examination of the nature of the expenditure, opining that deductions under Section 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, were allowable in computing the respondent's taxable income. The High Court, on reference, ruled in favour of the respondent.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the share of a partner in the profits and gains of a registered firm, as provided under Section 23(5)(a)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, is to be included in the partner's total income. This share is considered 'profits and gains of business' earned by the partner and is thus computed under Section 10. Consequently, expenditure necessary for earning this income, along with allowances under Section 10(2), are deductible in determining the partner's taxable income. The Court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's view that no further deductions could be made after the net profits were received by the partner. The principle established is that business income derived from a partnership is subject to the same deductions for necessary expenses and allowances as any other business income, provided the expenditure is incurred by the partner for the purpose of earning that income. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether expenses incurred by an assessee (who is not carrying on any independent business) in earning income from various firms in which he is a partner are allowable in law as deductions? (Question of law, turning on Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922). Assessee's Contentions: The respondent argued that his share of profits from the firms constituted business income, and therefore, expenses necessarily incurred to earn this income should be deductible under Section 10(2). The High Court supported this view. Revenue's Contentions: The Commissioner of Income-tax contended that since the respondent was not carrying on an independent business, expenses other than interest were not claimable on his own account. The revenue argued that such amounts should have been claimed as business expenses within the accounts of the four firms. The revenue relied on an unreported judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Messrs. Iswardas Subhkaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 10(2),Section 16(1)(b),Section 23(5)(a)(ii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

860 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR v. RAMNIKLAL KOTHARI March 1, 1969 [J. C. SHAH AND ~- N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act (11 of 1922), s.r. 10(1) & (2), J6(1)(b) and 23(5) (a) (ii) Partnership carrying on business-Partner's lvhere determined- Partner if further entitled to deductions under s. 10(2).

The respondent was carrying on business in diverse lines as a partner in four different firms.

For the assessment years 1955-56 and 1956-57 he declared his share df pmfits from the four firms and claimed deductions made up of saJarv and bonus to staff. expense$ for maintenance and depreciation of motor-car, traveJiing expenses and interest.

The Incbme- tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed only the claim for interest as a permissible deduction. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the cases for the two years for an examination of the nature of expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the respon~ dent. as, in its view, deductions admissible under s. 10(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1922 were allowable in computing the taxable income of the respondent.

On the question, whether expenses incurred by the respon- dent (who wa·s not car

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →