Skip to content


M.P.C.K. Mohandoss Vs. Fifth Income-tax Officer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1985)14ITD321(Mad.)
AppellantM.P.C.K. Mohandoss
RespondentFifth Income-tax Officer
Excerpt:
.....in fourth ito v. m.p.c.k. mohandoss [1985] 14 itd 323 (mad.) (tm), i have already held that the salary/remuneration paid by the firm to the assessee in his individual capacity for services rendered by him to the firm cannot be treated as the income of the huf of which the assessee is the karta and which huf is a partner through the assessee in the partnership firm of m.p.c. narayana nadar & bros. in the premises, i proceed on the basis that the assessee has received the salary/remuneration from the partnership firm for the services rendered by him individually and such a remuneration is not the income of the huf which is a partner through him. as a natural corollary i have to hold that the remuneration paid to the assessee as an individual cannot be held to be a mere method of.....
Judgment:
1. The learned Members who heard the appeal, originally, have differed and have stated the point of difference as under: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the remuneration received by the assessee-individual from the firm of M.P.C. Narayana Nadar & Bros. in question should be assessed as salary on which the assessee will be entitled to standard deduction under Section 16(i)? 2. It is pertinent to mention that there was also a difference of opinion between the learned Members in the case of the HUF of which the assessee is the karta. By my Third Member order under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') of even date, being in Fourth ITO v. M.P.C.K. Mohandoss [1985] 14 ITD 323 (Mad.) (TM), I have already held that the salary/remuneration paid by the firm to the assessee in his individual capacity for services rendered by him to the firm cannot be treated as the income of the HUF of which the assessee is the karta and which HUF is a partner through the assessee in the partnership firm of M.P.C. Narayana Nadar & Bros. In the premises, I proceed on the basis that the assessee has received the salary/remuneration from the partnership firm for the services rendered by him individually and such a remuneration is not the income of the HUF which is a partner through him. As a natural corollary I have to hold that the remuneration paid to the assessee as an individual cannot be held to be a mere method of distribution of profits. It is a salary/remuneration which the assessee gets for the services rendered in his individual capacity. This being so, I am of the view that its character in the hands of the assessee is nothing but salary and, therefore, he is entitled to statutory deduction under Section 16(i) of the Act.

For these and other reasons given by the learned Accountant Member with which I agree, I hold that the remuneration is assessable in the hands of the assessee as salary which qualifies for standard deduction under Section 16(0- 3. The Third Member order will now go to the Division Bench for deciding the appeal according to majority view.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //