9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave run the business hence the same could be assessed as AOP - Held that:- Since the partnership deed is reconstituted subsequent to the amendment of Income-tax Act w.e.f. 1-4-1993 the AO ought to have discussed the facts of the present case in the light of law laid down in the case of CIT vs Rangila Ram (2000 (8) TMI 11 (SC)) and also in the light of provisions of Karnataka Exercise (General Cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is not in dispute that the respondent assessee is a partnership firm doing wholesale liquor business. We are concerned with the assessment year 2002-03. One of the partners of the respondent assessee was holding a license to carry on the liquor business. Therefore, when the returns came to be filed, the Assessing Officer held that in the absence of one of the partners, the firm could not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the respondent Assessee was not entitled for any allowance as claimed in the returns. He relies upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Rangila Ram [2002] 254 ITR 230/122 Taxman 709 (SC). He also places reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in ITA Nos. 191/2007 and 199/2007. 4. From the orders of the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of liquor. 5. In the present case, as the partnership deed is reconstituted subsequent to the amendment of Income-tax Act with effect from 1-4-1993 the Assessing Officer ought to have discussed the facts of the present case in the light of law laid down in the case of Rangila Ram ( supra ) and also in the light of provisions of Karnataka Exercise (General Conditions Rules), 1967. 6. Thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
