9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (4) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dhamal and Premchand are the partners of the firms. As a matter of fact Sh. Kishanchand was all along partner in the capacity of HUF. He has claimed partition in respect of his capital. In fact there is no partition. Only the capital of the partner Kishanchand has been bifurcated into three parts. There is no co-parcener worth claiming the partition in the HUF of Sh. Kishanchand. Thus the capital employed by Shri Kishanchand is that of HUF and he still continues to be a partner in the capacity of HUF. In the deed he has written that he is a partner in the individual capacity. Thus the actual construction of the firm and deed differs and the firm is not in accordance with the deed. Secondly, the partner Smt. Uttambai, who is wife of Sh. Budh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made a partner in the capacity of an individual. Sh. Kishanchand had effected a partial partition in the family on 1st April, 1973, amongst his wife Smt. Ratnadevi, his minor son Shri. Sanjeev Kumar and himself. A fresh deed of partnership was executed and a fresh registration was applied in form No. 11 and 11A with a deed of partnership. The ITO's remark in his order that there was no partition of family represented by the karta Shri Kishanchand is not correct. It is submitted by the counsel of the respondent Shri S.R. Nema that the partition was accepted by the ITO, B ward, Satna w.e.f. 1st April, 1973,vide his order under s. 171 of the Act 12th Aug.,1975. A copy of the order of ITO accepting the partition has been filed. On going thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... started the question of benami. Further, the ITO has not brought out any material in support of his case. In view of this fact, the AAC has rightly allowed the registration of the firm. ITA No. 657 (Jab) / 77-78 4. This appeal is directed against the order of the AAC. There are five grounds of appeal, which are discussed separately as under: The first ground of appeal relates to relief granted by the AAC in respect of interest disallowed by the ITO amounting to Rs. 10,785. The interest of Rs. 10, 785 was paid to Smt. Ratnadevi and minor Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, wife and son of one of the partners Sh. Kishanchand. The assessee gas has claimed that the money deposited in the name of these two creditors does not belong to Sh. Kishanchand. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4.370 on account of rebate allowed to customers and cash discounts. On going through the details, we find, the assessee has claimed a total sum of Rs. 4,370 in respect of this item. The assessee has filed details of rebate allowed to the customer above Rs. 10. The rebate above Rs. 10 was allowed to more than 50 customers and the total sum then allowed came to Rs. 2,951. Besides this rebate, a total rebate of Rs. 1,418 was also given to customers, where the rebate per customer was less than Rs. 10. The ITO disallowed the remission on the ground these revisions of sale and this being that related to trading and also covered by gross profits, there was no justification in his allowance in the profit and loss account. We do not follow the logic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
