9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm from the builders. So far as payment of the rent by the firm is concerned, it was a normal allowable business expenditure of the firm. Thus, both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal have come to a concurrent finding of the fact on examination of evidence that the tenancy of the rental premises belonged to the individual partners and not to the Respondent Assessee. It is also noticed that the amounts received by the partners in the individual capacity, was disclosed in their return of income claiming the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act. - Decided against the revenue. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2013 - - - Dated:- 13-1-2015 - M.S.SANKLECHA, G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. A. R. Malhotra with Mr. N. A. Kazi and Ms. Padma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the premises was in the name of the partners individually and not in the name of the firm. The RespondentAssessee pointed out that the rented premises was alloted to Mr. Ratwani and Mrs. Ratwani who had migrated from Pakistan as is evident from the communication of the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property to the landlord - Mr. V. Shantaram dated 21st December, 1959, directing the landlord to treat Mr. Ratwani and Mrs. Ratwani as his direct tenants. The present partners of the RespondentFirm are legal heirs of Ratwani's to whom the tenancy was originally allotted. It was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the RespondentAssessee was made a party to the Agreement at the instance of the builder to ensure a title free of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtners and never by the firm. In view of the above, Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the impugned order dated 13th June, 2012. 8 Mr. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that the Tripartite Agreement found during the course of survey was entered into between landlord, RespondentAssessee and the builder. The individual partners who claim to be tenants of the said premises do not find any mention therein. Besides, the rent in respect of the office premises were always paid by the firm. Both these factors would indicate that the tenancy of the rental premise belonged to the firm and not to the individual partners. 9 We find that the RespondentAssessee had in fact before Assessing Officer pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
