Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (10) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wal of registration for the assessment year under consideration in respect of the previous year period from May 1, 1974, to March 2, 1975?" - We answer the first question of law in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the second question of law in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Judge(s) : R. K. AGRAWAL., PRAKASH KRISHNA. JUDGMENT The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following two questions of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that even if .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the period March 3, 1975, to April 25, 1975, and claimed that it is a case of succession and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 188 of the Act two assessments should be made. It may be mentioned here that up to the assessment year 1975-76, the respondent-firm had been granted registration/renewal of the registration. For the assessment year 1976-77, the respondent had filed an application in Form No. 11A on September 29, 1976, seeking registration. It has filed declaration in Form No. 12 on June 30,1975, to the effect that there have been no changes in the partners or in the profit sharing ratio during the period May 1, 1974, to March 2, 1975. The Income-tax Officer was of the opinion that it is a case of change in the const .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel, submitted that as the firm as it stood on March 3, 1975, consisted of two existing partners and there was a provision in the partnership deed that in the case of death of any of the partners the firm shall not stand dissolved but shall be continued by the legal representative of the deceased partner, it was not a case of dissolution but of reconstitution, i.e., the change in the Constitution of the firm falling under section 187 of the Act and thus, only one assessment and not two assessments ought to be made. We find force in the submission of Shri A.N. Mahajan. In view of the stipulation in the partnership deed that the firm shall not stand dissolved on the death of any of the partners but s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates