9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Honble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) This appeal is preferred by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2003, passed by the Hyderabad Bench B of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in I.T.A.No.945/Hyd/94. The appellant is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, through a document dated 19.01.1988, and it comprises of four partners. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant firm. Accordingly, he took into account, the net profit and loss of the appellant alone and passed an order of assessment. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) II, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through order dated 17.02.1994. Challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department filed I.T.A. before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deeds of partnership, the question of the financial affairs of the one firm being treated as part of the other does not arise. He contends that the appellant itself maintained the difference between the affairs of the two firms by maintaining separate books of account and that the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal have taken correct view of the matter. The entire controversy in this appeal is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses at Rs. 5,79,852/-. The combined figure of these losses was pitted against the house property income of the appellant firm of Rs. 6,04,480/-. As a result, the net loss of Rs. 46,420/- was shown. This was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and his view was upheld by the Tribunal. The mere fact that the same partners happened to be the partners in two separate firms, does not constitute the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 19.03.1990. That event only demonstrates that both the firms have separate channels, be it of constitution or maintenance of accounts. That being the case, the loss earned by one firm cannot be pitted or set off against the profits of the other firm. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
