JUDGMENT
Kirpal, J.
1. The petitioner had claimed deduction of some amount which had been paid in terms of partnership deed to four persons. These four persons were Saroj Kumar, who was a partner of the firm, and three minors who had been admitted to the benefits of the partnership. The payment was made to them pursuant to a fresh partnership deed which had been drawn up, excluding the said four persons from the said firm. The question which arose for consideration before the Income-tax Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was whether this payment is allowable as revenue expenditure or not.
2. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have observed that the payment was in the nature of rent which was paid and the payment which was made was in excess of the standard rent which could be fixed under section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This was one of the grounds for disallowing the payment made. It was also held by the Tribunal that the payment which was made was a capital disbursement and not allowable as a revenue deduction.
3. In our opinion, this case involves the interpretation of the various deeds which had been executed between the partners of the firm and involves the effect and implication of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act and Partnership Act. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the amount paid to Saroj Kumar and three minors was not allowable as a revenue deduction?”
4. The petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be not order as to Costs.