9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No. 1179 (Mad)/1980 dt. 16th January, 1981: (i) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that there has been a dissolution of the partnership on 29th February, 1972 and not a mere retirement of partner Shri. S. Manickam?" (ii) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e instant case only if the retiring partner was entitled to be paid any amount by the assessee firm as a result of the taking of accounts as on the date of retirement and after adjusting the amounts due by the retiring partner to the firm there was anything more payable to him?" 2. The assessee is a firm running a bus service. The partnership consisting of three brothers namely, S. Palaniappan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order relating to this issue read as under: "We therefore direct the ITO to consider this question afresh in the light of our observations". Question No. 4 is sought to be raised on the assumption that it was not open to this Bench of this Tribunal to allegedly ignore certain observations which were considered binding on this Tribunal when it passed the present order on this issue when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on even as described in the dissolution agreement is essentially a question of fact. Hence question No. 1 does not arise as it does not give rise to the question of law. Question No 2 does not arise because it is academic. Question No. 2 seems to raise the issue whether there could be profit u/s 41(2) when there is retirement of a partner from the firm. The observation that there would be no such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
