HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Suwalal Anandilal Jain v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Ranchi
Tax Reference Case No. 1 of 1993
[1997] 2 SCR 793 ·
40(b), historical Explanation 2 · 257
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Three-judge bench · A.M. Ahmadi, C.J. · Sujata V. Manohar, J. · K. Venkataswami, J.
Assessment years: 1976-77
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1976-77, the firm said its partners represented their respective HUFs but had separately advanced their own individual funds. It maintained separate ledgers for the personal loan-creditor accounts and the HUF representative partnership accounts. It sought deduction of interest paid on the personal funds; the judgment supplies no quantified interest amount (physical page 2).
The ITO, Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal disallowed the claim. Because High Courts differed on section 40(b), the Tribunal referred the question directly to the Supreme Court under section 257. This was not an ordinary appeal from a High Court merits judgment (physical pages 2–3).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court adopted Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das’s reasoning on the same issue. The individual and HUF are distinct tax entities, and historical Explanation 2 recognised the different capacities in which the individual could deal with the firm. A person representing an HUF as partner could separately deposit personal funds and receive interest on them. That explanation was declaratory, so the distinction also applied before 1 April 1985 (physical pages 3–5).
The principle was confined to the section 40(b) interest issue. The quoted discussion of partnership law did not erase the source-and-capacity distinction, but nor did it decide all remuneration, commission, capital-account or recipient-tax questions. The Court found no need for further exposition beyond the earlier decision (physical pages 4–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The referred question was answered in favour of the assessee and against Revenue, without costs. The claimed personal-fund interest was not disallowed merely by the historical section 40(b) prohibition in the circumstances stated. The Court made no quantified deduction or tax calculation (physical page 5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Assessee firm
Direct reference answered for assessee; no costs
Final historical interest/capacity interpretation for AY 1976-77
No blanket deduction for every payment to a partner, no recipient-interest exemption and no conclusion that ledger labels alone prove the funds’ ownership.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Establish both the capacity of participation in the firm and the ownership of the money advanced. Separate ledgers help evidence the distinction but cannot replace the underlying facts. This authority concerns the firm’s interest deduction and does not decide salary or commission paid to a partner or exempt interest in the recipient’s hands.
The complete two-page Kanji Shivji order of 25 January 2000 was checked. It expressly affirmed Suwalal’s declaratory interpretation and treated Rashik Lal’s contrary interest-explanation remarks as obiter because no interest-payment question arose there. This direct later check is not a comprehensive citator review.
The checked 2011 compilation records section 40(b)’s substitution from 1 April 1993, with deed, working-partner and limit provisions and differently numbered explanations. Apply the correct year and payment category; the old Explanation 2 label is not a reliable map to every later version or to the 2025 Act.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, year, separated accounts and direct reference
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Adopted reasoning and present operative answer
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4; 5
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Later express affirmation and interest-obiter qualification
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2
- paragraphs
- Complete Court order
- source role
- later judicial treatment
- topic
- Post-1993 structure and explanation numbering
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 298; 299; 300
- paragraphs
- Section 40(b), explanations 1–4 and footnote 33
- source role
- bounded historical statutory text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
K. Venkataswami, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 5 PDF pages; SHA-256 ced77ca1bd25805f6f8e8c1d2a7b5cd6a8e4da6c953601f23f9c34bb211403b0. Original bytes preserved. Complete judicial text physical pages 2–5/SCR 794–797; direct tax reference, with the quoted earlier appeal disposition distinguished.
- The first headnote paragraph on page 1 prints a cutoff of 1 April 1978, while its held passage and the judicial reasoning use 1 April 1985. The latter is the relevant explanatory-amendment date.; The embedded Brij Mohan quotation ends by allowing that earlier appeal and setting aside its High Court judgment. The present operative order instead answers a section 257 reference; the two dispositions must not be conflated.; The case is an assessee-firm deduction dispute despite the short personal-name caption. No separate individual or HUF assessment is decided.; The report gives no interest sum, rate, personal-loan amount or new computation. None is inferred.; The 2011 explanation numbering and post-1993 statutory conditions differ from the historical provision considered. No current deduction limit or automatic statutory carryover is certified.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive later treatment remains unverified. Kanji Shivji’s entire two-page order was directly checked for the specific affirmation described; the 2011 statutory comparison is limited to the stated pages.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 5 pages
SHA-256: ced77ca1bd25805f6f8e8c1d2a7b5cd6a8e4da6c953601f23f9c34bb211403b0
- later reported judgment direct treatment — PDF 2 pages
SHA-256: df2a5146f975242a88e3ba35b224db954860eb2f3ffee36628f7c2fdb2a9b3ae
- official department hosted historical statutory compilation — PDF 1251 pages
SHA-256: 1ec6e4c38dc1d524d1d40b1fd35d13ac1336c8fc549cef2af1bf723a999c822b
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.