9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g partners. In view of the above discussion, our answer to the question is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 4-7-2002 - Judge(s) : M. S. SHAH., K. A. PUJ. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by M. S. SHAH J.-When this reference reached hearing today, Mr. Tanvish Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, made a specific request that since this reference is covered by a reported decision of this court and the matter is pending since 1994, the reference may be taken up for hearing by this Bench notwithstanding the fact that one of us (Mr. Justice K. A. Puj) had appeared as counsel for the assessee at the hearing before the Tribunal. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... firm and that since the retiring partner did not have right to share in the future profit, there was no question of his giving up such a right. The Gift-tax Officer, however, computed the value of the taxable gift at Rs. 93,480 after granting the basic exemption of Rs. 5,000. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CGT v. Chhotalal Mohanlal [1987] 166 ITR 124 and held that there was a relinquishment by the retiring partner in favour of two of the remaining partners. In his appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee pointed out from the new partnership deed that the partners whose shares had increased had also agreed to increase their share in the lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inue to remain the assets and the goodwill of the firm. All that the retiring partner gets is the value of his share in the partnership assets less its liabilities. It cannot, in such circumstances, be held, assuming that the retiring partner received less than what was his due, that the difference was something that he had transferred to the continuing partners within the meaning of 'transfer of property' for the purposes of the Gift-tax Act or that there was a gift liable to gift-tax." Again in CGT v. D. C. Shah [2001] 249 ITR 518, the apex court has held that when one of the partners in a firm retires or his share is decreased and the share of another/other partner/s is correspondingly increased, it does not necessarily lead to the inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
