What is CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram authority for?

Salary paid to a partner is merely a mode of sharing profits and retains the character of the firm's income. The payment is an adjustment of the amount the partner is entitled to receive based on their contribution of human capital, skill, and toil.

How many judgments cite CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram (106 ITR 292), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 80-IC, Section 10(2A), Section 143(3), Section 143(3A), Section 143(3B), Section 2(29BA)(a).

CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram (106 ITR 292)

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 256/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 247 to 250 & 260/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India LLP Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ Income-tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 GIDC, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACFB 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

In the result, summarised and concise ground No

ITA 249/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 247 To 250 & 260/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Income-Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.254 To 256/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bhawani Industries India Llp Assistant Commissioner Of Income- C/1-B, 236/3 Gidc, Aji बनाम/ Tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No.311, Industrial Estate, Rajkot-36 3Rd Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Race Vs. 003 Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfb 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr & Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 247 to 250 & 260/RJT/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18 2018-19 & 2010-11 Bhawani Industries India LLP Assistant Commissioner of बनाम/ Income-tax, Cicle-2(1), Rajkot, C/1-B, 236/3 GIDC, Aji Industrial Room No.311, 3rd Floor, Aaykar Estate, Rajkot-36 003 Vs. Bhawan, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACFB 8046 R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""…

The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Century Sheltors

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/70/2024HC Karnataka23 Sept 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260Section 30Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…ITA No. 70 of 2024 3. Whether in fact and circumstance, the Hon’ble ITAT has misled itself, attributing findings of Hon’ble ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Quality Industries to be those of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M.Chidambaram Pillai 106 ITR 292 (SC)?” 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submits that the tax effect in this appeal is less than Rs.2 Crores and therefore, the appeal should not be entertained at the instance of the revenue in view of the Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is also submitted that the aforesaid Circula…

ISHWARDAS SATYANARAYAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2058/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleishwardas Satyanarayan Gupta V. Ito – Ward – 41(3)(2) Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 B1002, Mahindra Eminent G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Near Patkar College Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 S.V. Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai – 400104 Pan: Aejpg5040F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…er is only a mode of sharing the profits. The salary paid to a partner retains the same character of the income of the firm. These principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillal Etc. 1977 CTR (SC) 71: (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC). It has been held in this decision, that the salary of a partner is only an alias for the return by way of profits for the human capital-sweat, skill and toil--which the partner has brought in for the common benefit. The immediate reason for payment of salary may be the service contract, but the causa causans is the partnership. The Supreme…

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1102/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1100/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1073/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

…Income Tax Act to change or alter the basic law governing partnership. Interest or salary is paid to partners remains distribution of business income. 4.6 Relevant here to refer decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. R.M. Chidambaram (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), wherein held as under: “11.4 Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 defines the terms partnership, partner, firm and firm name as under : “Partnership" is the relation between persons, who have agreed to share the profits of a business, carried on by all or any of the partners acting for all. Persons who have entered into partnership…

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 994/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the Tribunal in the case of Quality Industries vs. JCIT vide ITA No.2000/PUN/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 09.09.2016, wherein, the Tribunal after making a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai, 106 ITR 292 (SC) held that a “firm” and “partnership firm” are not separate unit under the Partnership Act, although a separate unit of assessment for tax purposes after making reference to section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Tribunal (supra) reads as under :- “11.5 As noted, as per the scheme of the…

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 993/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.993 & 994/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dhumal Industries, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. E-36, D Road, Midc, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aacfd0528N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nashik [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 08.05.2019 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.993/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the Tribunal in the case of Quality Industries vs. JCIT vide ITA No.2000/PUN/2014 for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 09.09.2016, wherein, the Tribunal after making a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai, 106 ITR 292 (SC) held that a “firm” and “partnership firm” are not separate unit under the Partnership Act, although a separate unit of assessment for tax purposes after making reference to section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Tribunal (supra) reads as under :- “11.5 As noted, as per the scheme of the…

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…ITA No.704/Bang/2022 JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 JICE Academy for Excellence Pvt. Ltd. #1173, II Floor, Manuvana NFAC/CIT(A) Vijayanagar Vs. Delhi Bangalore 560 040 PAN NO : AADCJ2476K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the Grounds No

ITA 54/JPR/2017[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2012-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…t previous year, computed in the manner laid down……).This is based on the principle that the firm is not a separate legal entity but is a compendium of persons hence, a partner is not a separate person from the firm. 6.2.2 Kindly refer CIT v/s R.N.Chidambaram 106 ITR 292 (SC), holding that "A firm is not a legal person, even though it has some attributes of personality. In Income-tax law, a firm is a unit of assessment, by special provisions, but it is not a full person. Since a contract of employment requires two distinct persons, viz., the employer and the employee, there cannot be a contract of service, in str…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 620/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…t previous year, computed in the manner laid down……).This is based on the principle that the firm is not a separate legal entity but is a compendium of persons hence, a partner is not a separate person from the firm. 6.2.2 Kindly refer CIT v/s R.N.Chidambaram 106 ITR 292 (SC), holding that "A firm is not a legal person, even though it has some attributes of personality. In Income-tax law, a firm is a unit of assessment, by special provisions, but it is not a full person. Since a contract of employment requires two distinct persons, viz., the employer and the employee, there cannot be a contract of service, in str…

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 36(1)(iii)

…t previous year, computed in the manner laid down……).This is based on the principle that the firm is not a separate legal entity but is a compendium of persons hence, a partner is not a separate person from the firm. 6.2.2 Kindly refer CIT v/s R.N.Chidambaram 106 ITR 292 (SC), holding that "A firm is not a legal person, even though it has some attributes of personality. In Income-tax law, a firm is a unit of assessment, by special provisions, but it is not a full person. Since a contract of employment requires two distinct persons, viz., the employer and the employee, there cannot be a contract of service, in str…

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

…e person to another. It is a payment to self. It may be treated as loan or deposit for the purposes of accounting only and not for. the purposes of general law. He relied upon the following decisions : CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526 (Guj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Madhukant M. Meh…

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5276/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra singhFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

…rtnership is only a collective of separate persons and not a legal person in itself. For the purpose of the Act, a firm is considered as a unit of assessment by special provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. R.M. Chdambaram Pillai: (1977) 106 ITR 292, while holding that payment of salary to a partner represents a special share of the profits and the salary paid to the partner retains the same character of the income, observed as under: “ ….there cannot be a contract of service, in strict law, between a firm and one of its partners. So that any agreement for remuneration of a partner for takin…

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

…e person to another. It is a payment to self. It may be treated as loan or deposit for the purposes of accounting only and not for. the purposes of general law. He relied upon the following decisions : CIT vs. R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 1977 CTR (SC) 71 : (1977) 106 ITR 292 (SC), Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 172 : (1985) 156 ITR 509/23 Taxman 14W (SC), Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 415 : Page 18 of 37 (1979) 120 ITR 49 : (1979) 2 Taxman 409 (SC), ITO vs. Arunagiri Chettiar (1996) 134 CTR (SC) 167 : (1996) 220 ITR 232 : (1996) 86 330 (SC), 74 ITR 526JGuj) Taxman (sic), CIT vs. Ma…

SHRI HIREN RAMESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(7), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1880/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1880/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, I.T.O., Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Ward-3(2)(7), Chartered Accountants, Ahmedabad. 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram, Railway Station, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Abypp8084C

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R

…lowed as a deduction in the hands of the assessee. In respect of the nature of the share in the profits of the firm, in the hands of the partner, the Supreme Court has A.Y. 2013-14 6 considered the issue in the case of CIT, Madras v.s.R.M. Chidambaram Pillai 106 ITR 292 and held that salary paid to a partner is business income. Applying those case laws to a partner of a Chartered Accountant Firm, the C-Bench of the Trihunal in the case of Shri Sudhir Kapadia vs. ITO, order dated 26th Feb., 2007, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Similar view was taken by the J-Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mr.…

CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram

What is CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. R.M. Chidambaram

BHAVANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP,RAJKOT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. BHAWANI INDUSTRIES INDIA LLP, RAJKOT

The Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Century Sheltors

ISHWARDAS SATYANARAYAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-41(3)(2), MUMBAI

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

DHUMAL INDUSTRIES, ,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

JICE ACADEMY FOR EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

M/S. RATILAL & SONS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(3)(1), MUMBAI

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

SHRI HIREN RAMESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(2)(7), AHMEDABAD