CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari

74 ITR 57Supreme Court of India1969#4226 most cited

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.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari · 74 ITR 57 · business income · partner's remuneration · deductible expenses · income from firm · salary to partner · bonus to partner · commission to partner · remuneration to partner

Sections most often in play

Section 28(v)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 139Section 14ASection 40(b)Section 80-IC
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 28(v)section 40(b)section 10(2a)construction pepenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 269ssection 273domestic companysection 269sssection 273bsection 271d

Judgments citing CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari

Aman Tandon, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3469/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Aman Tandon Vs. Acit 143, Sunder Nagar, Circle – 52 (1) New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aacpt7285N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 28

…mployees is not in dispute. However, the logic given by the revenue that the liability to incur such expenditure lies with the firm only is incorrect. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramlik Lal Kothari reported in 74 ITR 57 he submitted that in the said decision it is held that the expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the share income from the firm is an allowable expenditure. Referring to the copy of the assessment order for A.Y.2008-09 to 2014-15 he submitted that except for the year under consideration the expenses claimed on account of remuneration to t…

M/S. Shree Sai Enterprises, Bhubaneswar vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri N.R.BiswalFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 156Section 269SSection 271D

…onduct of the business must be regarded as portion of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in. The Supreme Court, further relying upon its own judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar vs. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 SC, wherein it had concluded that business of the firm was a business of the partner and the profits of the firm, were the profits of the partners and the expenditure incurred by partners in earning such shares was admissible for deduction in arriving at the total income under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court quoted from the commentary o…

Ask Partners, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 187/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 10Section 14ASection 40

…ax, 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…

M/S. R. Kumar Plus, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2772/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ax, 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 a/so 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…

M/S. R. Kumar, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2771/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2013-2014 & 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri G.C. Pipara, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 10(34)Section 14A

…ax, 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 a/so 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…

Syntholab Chemicals & Research, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(3), Mumbai

ITA 4156/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4156/Mum/2015, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Syntholab Chemicals & Research Acit, -18(3) Office No.13 & 20, Ground Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point Bhangwadi Shopping Arcade, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Kalbadevi Road,Mumbai- 400 002. Pan:Aaacp 2682 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement:19.04.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 11/05/2015,Of Cit (A)-29,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Bulk Drugs & Intermediates, Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/09/2012,Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1.58 Crore.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3)Of The Act,On30/01/2015,Determining Its Income At Rs.2,00,12,590/-.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,Grounds 2,4,5,6 & 8 Were Not Pressed. Hence, Same Stands Dismissed,As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 28

…ch 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 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 h…

Commissioner of Income Tax New Delhi vs. M/S Muthoot Financiers, New Delhi

ITA - 336 / 2002HC Delhi03 Feb 2015
Section 148Section 260Section 269Section 271

…ct of the business must be regarded as portion of the profits being made over as a reward for the human capital brought in. The Supreme Court, further relying upon its own judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar vs. Ramniklal Kothari [1969] 74 ITR 57 SC, wherein it had concluded that business of the firm was a business of the partner and the profits of the firm, were the profits of the partners and the expenditure incurred by partners in earning such shares was admissible for deduction in arriving at the total income under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court quoted from the commen…

Karan Raghav Export P Ltd

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/955/2010HC Delhi01 Nov 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

Section 10

…ITA No. 955 of 2010 Page 5 of 13 submission, again pointing out that these judgments were cited before the Tribunal, but were not considered by the Tribunal: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ramnik Lal Kothari [74 ITR 57] wherein the Supreme Court explained the principle in the following words: “6. Where a person carries on business by himself or in partnership with others, profits and gains earned by him are income liable to be taxed Under Section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. Share in the profits of a partnership received by a partner is "profits…