9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm came into existence from 17th March, 1980 by executing a fresh deed. Therefore, there should be two separate assessment period for two different independent firms. The ITO did not accept the claim of the assessee. According to him there was a change in the constitution of the firm. Therefore, there is no question of two separate assessment for two different periods. 2. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the AAC. AAC has reproduced the findings of the ITO stating there in that three partners, namely, S/Shri Mohanlal Saboo, (HUF), Smt. Sarswati Devi Urmila Saboo retired from partnership and Shri Mohan Lal Saboo along with Shri Sukmari Lal Saboo remained as partners. The deed was executed on 4th April, 1990. He further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and considered the material on record. The fact is not in dispute that initially there were five partners in the firm for the period from 21st Oct., 1979 to 15th March 1980 and there after new partnership deed was executed consisting of three (sic two) partners, namely, Shri Mohan Lal, Sukmar Saboo Smt. Yasoda Devi Saboo. Assessee has applied for registration in from no. 11 which is meant for new firm. ITO has granted the registration on that basis. When ITO himself has granted the registration on the basis of form-11 for the period from 17th March, 1980 to 7th Nov., 1980 treating it as a new firm, there is no question of clubbing the income of this firm and the firm which was a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... travelling expenses are in conformity with the r. 6D of the IT Rules. Therefore no disallowance should be made. When the expenditure on travelling is in conformity with r. 6D of IT Rules, we do not find any justification in disallowing any expenses on travelling specially when disallowance has already been made on car expenses. 8. The next issue for our consideration in this appeal is whether AAC erred in disallowing 1/3rd out of office rent. It is submitted before us by Shri Kothari, counsel for the assessee, that no partner is using the office premises. Only one employee is allowed to stay in the night and keep watch of the office premises. Therefore, there is no question of any disallowance. When the employee was allowed to stay in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
