9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of business status as a firm or association of persons, applicability of tax liability post-dissolution, correct status determination by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, reference of questions of law to the High Court. Analysis: The judgment pertains to seven applications filed by joint receivers and managers of a dissolved partnership firm, seeking direction for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law to the High Court. The firm, M/s. Duduwala and Company, was dissolved following a compromise in the Calcutta High Court, appointing joint receivers to manage the business until liabilities were settled. The assessments for the years 1960-61 to 1966-67 were initially treated as those of an unregistered firm by the Income-tax Officer and Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal, referencing a Supreme Court decision, changed the status to that of an association of persons in 1975. Further, the Appellate Tribunal, in 1978, directed that tax liability be determined as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, based on the beneficiaries' shares. Subsequently, the assessee sought references to the High Court on questions of law arising from the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal initially dismissed the reference applications, stating the status determination was a factual issue. However, the High Court rephrased the questions and directed the Tribunal to refer four specific questions regarding the status determination and tax computation to the High Court for opinion. The main contention revolved around whether the assessments should be based on the firm's dissolved status or as an association of persons, considering the joint receivers' control post-dissolution. The High Court deemed these issues as questions of law, necessitating a reference for clarification. The rephrased questions aimed to clarify the correct status of the firm during the relevant assessment years and the applicability of tax provisions based on the dissolution and subsequent management by the joint receivers. The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the revised questions for its opinion, emphasizing the need to address the core disputes between the parties effectively.
|
