M/S. ROCK ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(1), PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the firm was continuing its business and incurring other expenses, it could not be presumed that the business was run without the involvement of working partners. The remuneration paid was within the ceiling prescribed under Section 40(b) and had been offered for taxation by the partners.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm claimed remuneration to partners amounting to Rs. 8 lakhs. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount for lack of proof of actual work done by partners. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.
What were the issues?
Whether remuneration paid to partners is allowable as a deduction when the firm is continuing its business activities and the remuneration is within the prescribed limits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S.SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-5, Pune on 10-11-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of disallowance of remuneration to partners amounting to Rs.8 lakhs.
2 ITA No.455/PUN/2018 M/s. Rock Enterprises
Briefly stated, the facts as recorded in the assessment
order are that the assessee firm earned interest income. The
assessee was called upon to submit proof regarding the actual
work done by the partners for claiming remuneration. The AO
recorded that the assessee failed to produce such evidence.
The ld. AR was asked to explain as to why remuneration to
partners amounting to Rs.8 lakhs should not be disallowed, to
which he agreed for the addition. This led to the making of an
addition of Rs.8 lakhs in the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A)
upheld the AO’s action. The assessee is aggrieved by the
sustenance of addition.
I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant
material on record. It is manifest from the assessee’s return of
income, a copy of which has been placed on record, that total
income of Rs.18,06,480/- was declared. A copy of the
computation of total income, placed in the paper book, depicts
that such income was offered under the head `Profits and gains
of business or profession’. The assessee’s Profit and loss
account has been placed on record which shows opening and
closing stock of work in progress at Rs.17,15,268/-. Interest
3 ITA No.455/PUN/2018 M/s. Rock Enterprises
income has been credited to the Profit and loss account and
deduction has been claimed towards certain expenses, such as,
Salaries and wages, Account writing charges, Bank interest,
Professional fees, Depreciation and Salary to partners. This
shows that even though there was no direct business activity
carried on by the assessee, but it was only a case of temporary
lull in as much as the assessee kept the business intact by
paying salaries and wages apart from incurring other expenses
which have been narrated above. The fact that the assessee
agreed for addition of salary to partners has been assailed by
the ld. AR to have been forcibly extracted by the AO. When
the firm is continuing its business, incurring other expenses, it
cannot be presumed that the business is being run without the
involvement of working partners. It is further relevant to note
that the salary paid to partners was offered for taxation in their
individual returns and the same has been charged to tax. In
that view of the matter, it becomes overt that remuneration
was paid to partners for facilitating the working of the firm.
Such an amount, being within the ceiling prescribed u/s. 40(b)
of the Act, in my considered opinion, cannot be disallowed. I,
4 ITA No.455/PUN/2018 M/s. Rock Enterprises
therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and orer to delete the addition.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04th December, 2018. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�
पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 04th December, 2018 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-5, Pune 4. आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-4, Pune 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार
// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
ITA No.455/PUN/2018 M/s. Rock Enterprises
Date 1. Draft dictated on 04-12-18 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 04-12-18 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *
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 →- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026