What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its own earlier order for a previous assessment year, which dealt with a similar issue. The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to the partnership firm was incorrect.

The assessee, an individual, paid interest of Rs. 23,21,171/- to a partnership firm in which he was a partner. The Assessing Officer disallowed this interest payment while computing the assessee's business income.

What were the issues?

Whether interest paid by an individual to a partnership firm, where he is a partner, is a deductible expense for computing business income.

Nayant Maneklal Savani vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2016

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Gandhi

For Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Hearing: 07/12/2015Pronounced: 29/02/2016

The captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee and is directed against the impugned order dated 13/11/2014 of CIT(A)-13, Mumbai, pertaining to the assessment year 2009-10, which in turn has arisen from an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25/11/2011 under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961( in short “the Act”).

In this appeal, the solitary issue raised by the assessee is arising from the action of the CIT(Appeals) in sustaining a disallowance of (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Rs.23,21,171/- representing interest paid to partnership firm while computing business income in the hands of the assessee.

In brief, the relevant facts are that the appellant is an individual who had filed his return of income for assessment year 2009-10 declaring a total income of Rs.8,39,730/- . In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee had earned interest from partnership firm, where he was a partner and also paid interest to another partnership firm M/s.MSN Enterprise, where also he was a partner. The interest paid to MSN Enterprise amounting to Rs.23,21,171/- on account of debit balance with the said firm was disallowed by the Assessing Officer while computing business income. This action of the Assessing Officer was upheld by the CIT(Appeals).

Before me, the Ld. Representative for the assessee relied upon the order of the Tribunal dated 09/04/2014 pertaining to assessmet year 2008-09, in assessee’s own case, wherein similar controversy has been decided in favour of the assessee. It was a common point between the parties that the aforesaid precedent continues to hold the field and has not been altered by any higher authority. Since facts and circumstances and the nature of dispute is similar in this year, following the order of the Tribunal dated 09/04/2014(supra), I set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the relief to the assessee in accordance with the aforesaid precedent.

(Assessment Year : 2009-10) 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/02/2016.

NAYANT MANEKLAL SAVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 7(2)(2), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments