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: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

Ravi R Mullick E-2, Amalfi, L.D.Ruparel Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 16(1), Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400020.
August, 06th 2014
,                  ""          
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, MUMBAI

       BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SANJAY GARG, (JM)
   .. ,                                          ,                    

                     ./I.T.A.No.2903/Mum/2013
                  (   / Assessment Years : 2007-08)

 Ravi R Mullick                      /         The Assistant Commissioner of
 E-2, Amalfi,                        Vs.       Income Tax, 16(1),
 L.D.Ruparel Marg,                             Matru Mandir,
 Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006.                  Mumbai-400020.

        ( /Appellant)                 ..       (    / Respondent)

          . /   . /PAN/GIR No. : AAGPM5504R

              / Appellant by               :   Shri Atul Mehta
               /Respondent by :                Shri Vikas Kumar Agarwal


                / Date of Hearing
                                                   : 17.7.2014
               /Date of Pronouncement : 31.7.2014


                                  / O R D E R

Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:


      The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

07.02.2013 passed by Ld CIT(A)-6, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment year

2007-08.


2.    The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in confirming the

addition of Rs.3,14,105/-, being the difference between the amount of share of

profit from a partnership firm credited to his capital account and the amount of

share of total income of the partnership firm.
                                                              I.T.A. No.2903/Mum/2013
                                        2


3.    The facts relating to the above said issue are stated in brief. The assessee

is a partner in a partnership firm named M/s Kashon, wherein he is holding 50%

share. For the year ending 31.3.2007, the net profit shown in the Profit and Loss

account of the above said Partnership firm was Rs.25,52,952/-. The assessee's

share was Rs.12,76,476/- and the same was duly credited to the Capital account

of the assessee. The total income of the partnership firm was determined at

Rs.19,24,742/- after allowing deductions u/s 80IB and u/s 80G and also after

making certain disallowances. The assessee's share in the said total income

worked out to Rs.9,62,371/-.


4. The share of the assessee in the total income of the partnership firm is exempted from taxation u/s 10(2A) of the Act. The share of the assessee in the total income of the partnership firm was Rs.9,62,371/-, while the share of net profit that was credited to his capital account was Rs.12,76,476/-. The AO took the view that the assessee would be entitled to exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act only to the extent of Rs.9,62,371/-, being the share in the total income of the assessee and not the entire amount of Rs.12,76,476/- credited in the capital account. Accordingly he assessed the difference amount of Rs.3,14,105/- (Rs.12,76,476/- (-) Rs.9,62,371/-) as income of the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the said addition and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is in the common knowledge of every body that the net profit shown in the profit and loss account is the starting point for computing the total income under the Income tax Act. Further the total income is computed by making various additions and  I.T.A. No.2903/Mum/2013 3 deductions prescribed under the Act. Hence the total income computed under the Act need not be the same as that shown as net profit in the Profit and Loss account. For accounting/book purposes, the net profit is divided between the partners. Hence, in the instant case, the capital account of the assessee is credited with Rs.12,76,476/-, being 50% of the net profit declared by the partnership firm in its books of account. However, for computing the total income of the assessee, his share in the total income of the partnership firm is required to be considered, which was determined at Rs.9,62,371/- and the same was claimed as exempt u/s 10(2A) of the Act. The difference between the share of net profit and share in the total income has occurred due to the deductions allowed in the hands of the partnership firm u/s 80IB and 80G and also on account of making certain disallowances of expenditure. 6. The view taken by the tax authorities is that the exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act is available only to the extent of assessee's share in the total income of the partnership firm. Accordingly they have taken the view that the difference between the share of the assessee in the net profit and in the total income is assessable as income in the hands of the assessee. Both the tax authorities have rejected the contention of the assessee that the said difference has occurred due to the deductions allowed in the hands of partnership firm u/s 80IB and 80G of the Act, which are benefits allowed under the Act. The doubt entertained by the AO & CIT(A) has since been clarified by the CBDT in its Circular No.8 / 2014 dated 31.03.2014. For the sake of convenience, we extract below the contents of the Circular:-  I.T.A. No.2903/Mum/2013 4 7. A perusal of the Circular extracted above would show that a partner cannot be subjected to tax in respect of the share income received from the partnership firm. The income of the partnership firm can be subjected to tax only in the hands of the partnership firm. Further it is explicitly clarified that the entire profit credited to the partners' accounts in the firm would be exempt from tax in  I.T.A. No.2903/Mum/2013 5 


 the hands of such partners, even if the income chargeable to tax becomes NIL in the hands of the firm on account of any exemption or deductions as per the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, the difference has occurred due to the deductions allowed u/s 80IB and 80G of the Act. 8. The foregoing discussions would show that the tax authorities are not justified in assessing the amount of Rs.3,14,105/- referred above in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and direct the assessing officer to delete the addition of Rs.3,14,105/- made in the hands of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The above order was pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2014. 31st July, 2014 Sd sd ( /SANJAY GARG) (.. / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai: 31st July,2014. . ../ SRL , Sr. PS /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned 4. / CIT concerned 5. , , /  I.T.A. No.2903/Mum/2013 6 DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned 6. / Guard file. / BY ORDER, True copy (Asstt. Registrar) , /ITAT, Mumbai 
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System developers CMS developers Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions CMS India Content Management System India CMS development India Website CMS Website Content Management India Portal CMS India CMS Outsourcing CMS Vendor Complete CMS Custom CMS Services

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