9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 84-85, have been misconstrued by the Tribunal by placing reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. R.Y. Singara Mudaliar [1988] 172 ITR 608, which judgment did not anywhere refer to section 3(1)(f), though the decision rendered in that case supports the view of the Tribunal. Section 3(1)(f) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the income of the assessee who happens to be a partner in a firm. It is only concerned with the assessee's share income in his capacity as a partner. In cases where the "previous year" followed by an assessee is different from the "previous year" followed by the firm in respect of the share in the income of the firm, the "previous year" followed by the firm is necessarily to be regarded as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in the case of New Ambadi Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 141, that of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Biswanath Goenka v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 687, and that of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. McKenzie's Ltd. [1980] 121 ITR 458. The question referred to us is therefore answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was not right in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
