Section 184

Section 184 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 184, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CIT v S.R. Batliboi & Associates High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The revised partnership deed was not filed with the return but was produced during the assessment. Does s.185 still disallow the partners' remuneration?
  No, on this judgment. The Calcutta High Court held that s.185 read with s.184, although worded in emphatic terms, is not intended to be mandatory. The Assessing Officer had refused to treat the return as defective under s.139(9); having refused that, he could not simultaneously hold the return to be in derogation of s.184(4) and disallow the deduction. The disallowance of Rs. 4,49,60,000 of partners' remuneration was deleted.
• M/s Bhaskar & Co v CIT High CourtHelps departmentHigh Courts differ
  Our firm was a registered firm before 1993. Must we still produce a certified copy of the deed to be assessed as a firm?
  Yes. The Kerala High Court held that even a firm which enjoyed registration up to assessment year 1992-93 must furnish a certified copy of the instrument of partnership to be assessed as a firm for any year from 1993-94 onwards, and that the consequence of non-production is disallowance under s.185 of interest, remuneration and bonus paid to partners. Once the status is granted on that footing, s.184(3) carries it forward without further production until there is a change in constitution, when s.184(4) requires the revised instrument with the return. On the facts the Court gave a limited concession, remitting the matter for verification and directing that status as a firm be granted as a special case if the certified copy had in fact been produced when the assessment was taken up.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.