Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: VAT RATES :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: due date for vat payment
From the Courts »
 The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 Vs. Inter Globe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd.
 Akum Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited Through: Director Shri. Sanjeev Jain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central-2 New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop. M/s Ferns „n? Petals
 Prabhatam Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Laxman Industrial Resources Pvt.Ltd (Delhi High Court)
  State Of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Krishan K. Aggarwal (Supreme Court)
 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi
 Director Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Vishwa Hindu Parishad
 ITAT Proposes Important Changes To Tribunal Rules
 Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells vs. DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
July, 17th 2013

S. 40(b): Appointment of an existing partner as representative partner for another party may circumvent the ceiling on number of partners

The assessee, a firm of Chartered Accountants, filed a return offering income of Rs. 17.70 crores which was accepted by the AO u/s 143(3). The CIT then passed an order u/s 263 stating that the assessee had amended its partnership deed pursuant to which Mr. Mukund Dharmadhikari, who was already a partner of the firm, was added once again as a partner in a representative capacity, to represent Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai. As Mr. Dharmadhikari had the right to share profit, both in the representative capacity as well as in his individual capacity, the CIT held that the number of partners exceeded 20, the maximum allowed under the Partnership Act, 1932, and that the assessee had, therefore, to be treated as an Association of Persons. He held that the assessee was not entitled to claim a deduction u/s 40(b) for the salaries paid to its’ partners.On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD:

A study of the partnership deed shows that Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai, which is the participating firm, is not a stranger to the assessee. The assessee can take policy decisions, which have a policy bearing on such firm, once there is an approval of the majority of the members of the “National Firm”. Mukund Dharmadhikari was representing Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai, and the endeavour of the assessee was to bring on board the participating firm, on which it had powers to make policy decision, so that they became entitled for a share of profit. In other words, the effort of the assessee was to bring indirectly into the partnership M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai, which was already a participating firm. The assessee was a renowned partnership firm and was well aware that number of partners cannot exceed 20. It is a well settled principle of law that what is permissible is tax planning, but not evasion. When an attempt is made by a concern to evade tax using subtle camouflages, bounden duty of the authorities is to find out the real intention. It is the duty of the Court in every case, where ingenuity is expended to avoid taxing and welfare legislations, to get behind the smoke screen and discover the true state of affairs. The Court has to go into substance and not to be satisfied with the form. Though in Rashik Lal 229 ITR 458 (SC) & Bagyalakshmi 55 ITR 660 (SC) it was held that a partner may be a trustee or may enter into a sub-partnership with others, or can be a representative of a group of persons and that qua the partnership, he functions in his personal capacity, these decisions will not apply since the assessee was indirectly trying to bring in M/s Deloitte Haskins & Sells, Mumbai, another firm, which was already a participating firm, as its partner, circumventing the limit of maximum 20 members. The AO did not apply his mind and go into these aspects and so the CIT was justified in directing him to look into the issue.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions