ALLURE FASHIONS,CHENNAI vs. DCIT BUSINESS CIRCLE-1, TAMBARAM
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of remuneration as the assessee claimed deduction exceeding the amount debited to the P&L account. Similarly, excess interest on partners' capital was disallowed as it exceeded the permissible rate under Section 40(b)(iv).
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in export of shoe uppers, had its assessment completed under Section 143(3) and later reopened under Section 147. Additions were made for disallowance of partners' remuneration and interest on partners' capital account.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance of partners' remuneration and interest on partners' capital account exceeding prescribed limits is justified under Section 40(b).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY
: None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent by : 01.06.2022 सुनवाई क"तार!ख/Date of hearing 01.06.2022 घोषणा क"तार!ख /Date of Pronouncement : आदेश / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against
order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10, Chennai, dated 28.02.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2004-05.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of export of shoe uppers has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 on 01.11.2004 declaring total income of Rs.37,57,310/-. The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 2 28.12.2006 and assessed total income at Rs.69,21,043/-. The case has been subsequently reopened u/s.147 of the Act, and assessment has been completed u/s.143 r.w.s 147 of the Act on 31.12.2010 and determined total income at Rs.76,41,590/- by making additions towards disallowance of partners’ remuneration u/s.40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also disallowance of interest on partners’ capital account u/s.40(b)(iv) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority, but could not succeed. The learned CIT(A), for the reasons stated in his appellate order dated 28.02.2019, dismissed appeal filed by the assessee and sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of remuneration to partners and interest on capital u/s.40(b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us.
None appeared for the assessee. We have heard learned D.R. and perused necessary materials available on record. We find that the assessee is neither appearing nor filed any petition for adjournment of appeal, despite appeal filed by the assessee has been posted for hearing on 8 3 occasions on various dates starting from 9th August, 2021 to 1st June, 2022. From the above, it is very clear that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose off the appeal ex- parte on the basis of materials available on record.
The Assessing Officer has made additions towards excess claim of remuneration to partners u/s.40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessee has debited partners remuneration of Rs.18,12,000/- in the profit & loss account, however, claimed deduction of Rs.45,01,531/- in the statement of total income, which is contrary to the provisions of section 40(b) read with Explanation 3 of Income Tax Act, 1961. We find that as per provisions of section 40(b) read with Explanation 3, actual amount of remuneration allowable is amount debited to profit & loss account, subject to the maximum permissible u/s.40(b) of the Act. In this case, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.40(b) over and above amount of remuneration debited to profit & loss account. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make 4 additions towards disallowance of excess remuneration. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts has rightly sustained additions made towards disallowance of remuneration. Hence, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the assessee.
As regards disallowance of excess interest on partners capital account, it was noticed that the assessee has claimed interest on partners capital account of Rs.8,18,000/- and Rs.5,96,000/- respectively for Mr. Niranjan Mathur and Mr. Prabir Roy. It was further noted that in the partnership deed dated 19.08.2002 remuneration is provided @ 18% per annum, however, as per section 40(b)(iv) of the Act, allowable interest rate of partners capital account is only 12% per annum. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has disallowed excess interest paid on partners capital account and added back to total income.
Before us, the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details to justify interest on partners capital account paid @ 18% contrary to the provisions of Section 40(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered 5 view that there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to disallow excess interest on partners capital account and thus, we are inclined to uphold findings of the learned CIT(A) and reject grounds taken by the assessee.
More judgments on Section 40(b)
- M/S Shree Shakuntala Industries, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1396/JPR/2025[2002-03]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2002-03
- Morlidhar B Vamdote, Bardoli vs ITO, Ward-1, BardoliITA 1174/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- M/S Prashant Fruit Company, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1557/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S Prashant Fruit Company, Alwar vs ITO, Ward-1(1), AlwarITA 1549/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Super Fin Services, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer Ward 3(3)(5), AhmedabadITA 1389/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026