9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und in such event had only to be taxed in the individual case of the partner concerned and not in the case of firm - when the partner who invested the fund since is already assessed to tax separately, in the case of the firm there would not be any necessity for explanation of the fund – In favor of assessee - TAX APPEAL No. 2476 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2012 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MS SONIA GO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition made u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs.15,64,500/- ? [C] Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.45,491/- made on account of disallowance of interest paid to partners ? 2. Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt appearing for the Revenue and with his assistance examined the record placed before this Court. It eme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion A B both relate to addition made of sum of Rs.15,64,500/- . As can be noted from the order of the Tribunal, it has followed the decision of this Court given in case of CIT Vs. Pankaj Dyestuff Industries in Tax Appeal No. 241 of 1993 holding that no addition u/s. 68 of the Act can be made in case where the partner introduces capital in firm and he is assessed to tax separately. Tribunal a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when the partner who invested the fund since is already assessed to tax separately, in the case of the firm there would not be any necessity for explanation of the fund. Nothing contrary is pointed out in the present case by the Revenue and therefore, both these issues require no further indulgence. 7. The third question of interest being consequential in nature, deletion made by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
