What is CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari authority for?

A partner's income from a firm, including salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration, is considered business income in their hands. Expenses necessary for earning this business income are deductible.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari?

28 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari (74 ITR 57), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 28(v), Section 143(3), Section 36(1)(iii), Section 37(1), Section 139, Section 14A.

CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari (74 ITR 57)

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 43(1), DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3516/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.3516/िद"ी/2025 (िन.व. 2018-19) Atul Kumar Gupta, 3812/5, Kanhiaya Nagar, Tri Nagar, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Delhi 110035 Pan: Aggpg-9567-J बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant By : Shri Anil Sharma, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 24/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.03.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Shri Anil Sharma, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Is A Chartered Accountant By Profession & Is A Partner In M/S. A P R A & Associates Llp, Chartered Accountants. During The Period Relevant To Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Received Remuneration Of Rs.24,00,000/- From The Aforesaid Partnership Firm. The Assessee Claimed Expenditure Of Rs.6,76,456/- On Account Of Travelling Expenses, Telephone

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 28Section 32

…ssion or remuneration by whatever name called received by partner from such firm is in the nature of business income. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Ramnik Lal Kothari, 74 ITR 57. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Anil Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No. 5645/Del/2023 for AY 2010-11 decided on 31.01.2014 and the decision of Tribunal in the case of Aman Tandon vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3469/Del/2015 for AY 2011-12 decided on 13.12.2019. The ld. AR also referred to the computation of income at page no.…

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

…extent of 60% thereof representing agricultural income and was liable to tax only to the extent of 40%. Thus, it is clear that the character of salary paid to the partner has the same character of the income of the firm. (ii) CIT Vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) In the above matter the supreme court has held that business carried on by a firm is business carried on by the partners and profit of the firm are profits earned by all the partners in carrying on the business. Their lordship also has clearly held that the share of the partners is business income in their hands and being business income expen…

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

…extent of 60% thereof representing agricultural income and was liable to tax only to the extent of 40%. Thus, it is clear that the character of salary paid to the partner has the same character of the income of the firm. (ii) CIT Vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) In the above matter the supreme court has held that business carried on by a firm is business carried on by the partners and profit of the firm are profits earned by all the partners in carrying on the business. Their lordship also has clearly held that the share of the partners is business income in their hands and being business income expen…

MANASUKH VELJI SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, THANE

In the result, ground no.1 is allowed

ITA 4960/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…old provisions, section 67(3) entitled a partner to claim deduction in respect of any interest paid by a partner on capital borrowed by him for the purposes of investment in the firm from the share income. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 held the share of the partner as business income in his hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the purpose of earning that income and appropriate allowances are deductible there from in determining the taxable income of the partner. The Court held that the amount paid as salary and bonus to staff, expenditure for maintenance and…

RAMESH VELJI SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, , THANE

In the result, ground no.1 is allowed

ITA 4959/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…old provisions, section 67(3) entitled a partner to claim deduction in respect of any interest paid by a partner on capital borrowed by him for the purposes of investment in the firm from the share income. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 held the share of the partner as business income in his hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the purpose of earning that income and appropriate allowances are deductible there from in determining the taxable income of the partner. The Court held that the amount paid as salary and bonus to staff, expenditure for maintenance and…

SH. RANU GUPTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2224/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2224/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Sh. Ranu Gupta, Vs Acit, C-43, Ground Floor, National E-Assessment Centre, Soami Nagar, Mayur Bhawan, Connaught Lane, New Delhi-110017 Barakhamba, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arcpg2103M Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44A

…tants and he is holding a certificate of practice to carry out his profession. He relied on decisions of the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata in the case of Sagar Dutta (ITA no. 692/Kol/2012), decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramnik Lal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) and decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Aman Tandon (ITA no. 3469/Del/2015). 5.1 The AO did not accept the claim of the appellant stating that the assessee has received remuneration as working partner of the firm and not as an individual carrying on the profession specified u/s 44AA(1). The expenses incurred by working partner fo…

SACHIN CHANDRU MIRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5014/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nagesh Bhimrao Pasale

Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…old provisions, section 67(3) entitled a partner to claim deduction in respect of any interest paid by a partner on capital borrowed by him for the purposes of investment in the firm from the share income. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 held the share of the partner as business income in his hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the purpose of earning that income and appropriate allowances are deductible there from in determining the taxable income of the partner. The Court held that the amount earning the income from firm are deductible from the income. The De…

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Sunil Kumar Doshi Vs CPC, Barmer Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AASPD 2294 D Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari-C.A. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 03/07/2023 Date of 31/07/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 16.08.2022 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has ma…

KHEDUT COLD STORAGE CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 91/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Khedut Cold Storage Co., The Principal Commissioner Of Head Off At Officer No11, Vs. Income Tax, Jitendra Complex, Rajkot-1, Kalwa Chock, Rajkot. Junagadh-362001. Pan: Aanfk8513F

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…tax, under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent thereof, representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." Supreme Court has also held in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 (SC) that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the firm in which…

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

…d also held that a firm has no distinct legal entity apart from the partners except that in IT Act a firm is a unit of assessment and has certain attributes simulative of a personality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC)held,"...,., although for purpose of Income-tax a firm has certain attributes simulative of personality, we have to take it that a partnership is not a person but plurality of a person". In the classic decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Fisheries Co.'s case (supra) it has been held, "there is no transfer of assets involved even in…

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)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

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)

…ea, is exempt from tax, under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent thereof, representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." Further, in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC), it is held that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the fi…

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)

…ea, is exempt from tax, under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent thereof, representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." Further, in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC), it is held that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the fi…

BHAVANI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1131/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1130-1131/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2013-2014 & 2014-15) Bhavani Cotton Ginning & Pressing I.T.O., Factory, Vs. Ward-3(2)(5), Plot No.100/15, Gidc, Ahmedabad. Ranpur Road, Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divitia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyusingh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 250

…tax, under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent thereof, representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." Supreme Court has also held in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 (SC) that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the firm in which…

BHAVANI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1130/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1130-1131/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: (2013-2014 & 2014-15) Bhavani Cotton Ginning & Pressing I.T.O., Factory, Vs. Ward-3(2)(5), Plot No.100/15, Gidc, Ahmedabad. Ranpur Road, Dhandhuka, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divitia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyusingh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 145(3)Section 250

…tax, under rule 24 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922, to the extent of 60 per cent thereof, representing agricultural income and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." Supreme Court has also held in the case of CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 (SC) that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the firm in which…

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

…d also held that a firm has no distinct legal entity apart from the partners except that in IT Act a firm is a unit of assessment and has certain attributes simulative of a personality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC)held,"...,., although for purpose of Income-tax a firm has certain attributes simulative of personality, we have to take it that a partnership is not a person but plurality of a person". In the classic decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Fisheries Co.'s case (supra) it has been held, "there is no transfer of assets involved even in…

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

…d also held that a firm has no distinct legal entity apart from the partners except that in IT Act a firm is a unit of assessment and has certain attributes simulative of a personality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC)held,"...,., although for purpose of Income-tax a firm has certain attributes simulative of personality, we have to take it that a partnership is not a person but plurality of a person". In the classic decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Fisheries Co.'s case (supra) it has been held, "there is no transfer of assets involved even in…

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 17/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Koushik M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 24Section 24n

…old provisions, section 67(3) entitled a partner to claim deduction in respect of any interest paid by a partner on capital borrowed by him for the purposes of investment in the firm from the share income. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) held the share of the partner as business income in his hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the purpose of earning that income and appropriate allowances are deductible there from in determining the taxable income of the partner. The Court held that the amount paid as salary and bonus to staff, expenditure for maintenance…

SURESH SREERAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice-Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Jr. Standing Counsel

Section 14ASection 28Section 37Section 70

…old provisions, section 67(3) entitled a partner to claim deduction in respect of any interest paid by a partner on capital borrowed by him for the purposes of investment in the firm from the share income. The Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) held the share of the partner as business income in his hands and being business income expenditure necessary for the purpose of Page 5 of 6 earning that income and appropriate allowances are deductible there from in determining the taxable income of the partner. The Court held that the amount paid as salary and bonus to staff, expenditure for…

M/S. SANKALP,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 415/CTK/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 14(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

…me and is liable to tax only to the extent of 40 per cent." P a g e 6 | 12 ITA No.4 15/CTK/201 8 Assessm ent Y ear : 2 01 5-1 6 ITA No.2 37/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 2 01 6-1 7 Supreme Court has also held in the case of CIT vs. Ramniklal Kothari (1969) 74 ITR 57 (SC) that the business of the firm is business of the partners of the firm and, hence, salary, interest and profits received by the partner from the firm is business income and, therefore, expenses incurred by the partners for the purpose of earning this income from the firm are admissible as deduction from such share income from the firm in which…

CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari

What is CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari

ATUL KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 43(1), DELHI

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

MANASUKH VELJI SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, THANE

RAMESH VELJI SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, , THANE

SH. RANU GUPTA,DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

SACHIN CHANDRU MIRANI ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

KHEDUT COLD STORAGE CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

BHAVANI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

BHAVANI COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

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

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

SRI. NARAYANASWAMY KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

SURESH SREERAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(2), BANGALORE

M/S. SANKALP,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR