9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 11.12.2008 and 21.01.2010 passed by the Accountant Members of the Tribunal. The appeal has been admitted on the following questions of law:- i. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue partly? ii. Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal by its majority judgment, was justified in holding that no due enquiry was completed by the A.O. while allowing salary and interest to the partners ignoring the fact all the three conditions given in the amended Section 184 and 185 were met and the firm had to be assessed in the same status as earlier in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e its majority judgment was justified in holding otherwise? The facts of the case are that the appellant's firm was doing the business of sale and purchase of Bajaj two Wheelers, Five Wheelers/Motorcycle. They filed a return for the assessment year 2001-02 declaring an income of Rs. 52,720/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for deeper scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) (II) of the Act were issued to the appellant. Certain queries were raised by the Assessing Officer with regard to the source of investment in the capital account of the partners, which was processed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29.08.2003 on an income of Rs. 91,210/- in the status of the firm. A notice was issued to the assessee under Section 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he claim made by the firm under Section 36(1)(iii) read with Section 14-A was not allowable in favour of the partners as such deduction can only be granted to a firm. In view of the admitted position and in view of the opinion of the third member of the Tribunal and after examining the matter, we are also of the view that since the assessee failed to establish that the capital assets which had received were ever part of the firm's capital account. The deduction which had been allowed to them under that head could not have been allowed. It has rightly been disallowed. Insofar as the other aspects are concerned, the Tribunal has recorded that the assessee is a firm and is also assessed as a firm. In view of above, the question of laws a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
