THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S ASHWINI HOSPITAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA/822/2007HC KarnatakaKAHC01058541200721 January 2013Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of valuation and maintainability. However, it reserved liberty for the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeed in a related Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed a Tribunal order that allowed remuneration paid to partners of Rs. 7,20,000/-. The appeal questioned whether this remuneration was hit by Section 40(b)(v) of the Act, even though the partnership deed did not explicitly contemplate actual remuneration.

What were the issues?

Whether remuneration paid to partners was allowable under Section 40(b)(v) when the partnership deed did not explicitly contemplate such payment, and if the appeal was maintainable on valuation grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b)(v)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated this the 21st day of January, 2013

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B SREENIVASE GOWDA

Income Tax Appeal No. 822 of 2007 BETWEEN:

1.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE

C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

2.

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD – 5(4) C R BUILDING,

QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE.

… APPELLANTS

[By Sri K V Aravind, Adv.]

AND:

M/S ASHWINI HOSPITAL NO.1084, HOSPITAL ROAD YELAHANKA OLD TOWN BANGALORE.

… RESPONDENT

[By Sri N Manohar, Adv.]

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 08.06.2007 PASSED IN ITA NO. 832/BANG/2006, FOR THE

2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, SHYLENDRA KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

This appeal by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, the Act], though had been admitted to examine the following substantial question of law, is listed for hearing: Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the remuneration paid to partners of Rs.7,20,000/- was not hit by Section 40(b)(v) of the Act as the partnership deed even though did not contemplate the actual remuneration to be paid to the partners, the same permitted fixation of the remuneration which would comply with the Board Circular No.739 dated 25.03.1996 which was applicable only to the initial years, when the said section was introduced and consequently the remuneration was allowable?

2.

Sri K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the appellant-revenue and Sri N Manohar, learned counsel for respondent-assessee submit that having regard to the valuation of the subject matter of this appeal, which is in

3 a sum of Rs 2.10 lakh and having regard to the board circular, the appeal, though, may be disposed of as not tenable, liberty may be reserved to the appellant-revenue for reviving the matter in the event of success of the revenue before the Supreme Court in SLP No 27468 of 2010 and connected matters, wherein a similar orders have been made subject matter.

3.

In the light of this submission, this appeal is dismissed only on the ground of valuation and maintainability, but reserving liberty to the revenue to seek for revival of the appeal in the event of success in the special leave petition before the Supreme Court, as noticed above.

Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE *pjk

More judgments on Section 40(b)(v)

All 74 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b)(v) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →