9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1450X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.2013, arising out of orders under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 30.12.2011 framed by the ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad. As the issues raised in these appeals are common and relating to the same group, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. IT(SS)A Nos. 436 & 440/Ahd/2012-Assessee: Uma Shakti Corporation Kalol Project 2. First we take up IT(SS)A Nos. 436 & 440/Ahd/2012 in the case of Uma Shakti Corporation Kalol Project. The only issue raised relates to the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Act for unaccounted investment at Rs. 5,27,50,000/- on the basis of document seized during the course of search. On appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed this ground and deleted the addition of Rs. 2,72,50,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 5,27,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts in brief of this case are that search was conducted in the case of Umiya Group on 4.3.2010 and during search at the residence of partner of the appellant - Shri Vikas R. Patel - an unsigned Memorandum of Understanding (in short ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirm that on-money payments were actually made. In this background, the case laws relied upon by the appellant cited above viz. Shri Rajat Agrawal vs. DCIT 68 DTK 58 (JP Tribunal), CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes 262 ITR 354 (Ker), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43(Del) all support the contention that the draft agreement found during search was not acted upon. Notwithstanding the arguments of the appellant this is also a fact of the case that the partner from whose residence the MOU", its terms and "conditions etc were seized admitted u/s. 132(4) having purchased the land at the rate of Rs. 4500 per sq. yard and paid Rs. 51,00,000 in cash for the Kalol project land. English translation copy of the statement with Gujarati version furnished by the appellant is enclosed as Annexure-2 of this order. It was vehemently argued by the Id. AR that the partner was being asked questions with reference to the MOU and what he meant was the rate agreed upon in the MOU. It was argued that land could never have been purchased at this rate by Umiya Group when it had such small share ratio in the appellant firm. It was also pleaded during appellate proceedings that if the AO's version is upheld then the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by ld. Assessing Officer under Section 69 of the Act was merely based on unsigned, undated and rough draft MOU and kaccha chitthi, which was found during the course of search under Section 132 of the Act. This unsigned and undated MOU does not fall under the category of valid contract and have no legal sanctity. Further, ld. Assessing Officer has merely presumed that contents of such seized material are correct and assessee has actually paid such on-money without appreciating the fact that such seized material is nothing but merely a dumb document and ld. Assessing Officer completely failed to bring on record any corroborative material to prove that any such sum has been actually paid by the assessee. Further, no enquiry was made with the alleged recipient of such sum. Ld. Counsel further added that ld. Assessing Officer has also made reference to statement of Shri Vikas Patel, wherein he has admitted the factum of payment of Rs. 51,00,000/- in cash by the assessee-firm. However, ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that Shri Vikas Patel did not give any explanation for the amount of Rs. 51,00,000/-. Further, ld. Assessing Officer did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctual as well as settled legal position. In light of the above, impugned addition in respect of alleged unaccounted investment in unwarranted. The same be held so now. 9. Ld. Counsel further summarizing his contentions submitted that no addition should have been made under Section 69 of the Act for unexplained investment merely on the basis of unsigned, undated and rough draft of MOU and kaccha chitthi as actual transaction was entered separately through Shri bhagwanbhai Ajara, partner of the assessee-firm. In support of his contention that no addition can be made on the basis of dumb document, he placed reliance on following decisions:- i) ACIT vs. Manav Infrastructure P. Ltd in IT(SS)A No. 572/Ahd/2011 ii) ACIT vs. Dharmendrasinh R. Waghela, Prop. M/s. Narendra Roadlines in Tax Appeal No.1539 of 2011 (Guj). 10. On the other land, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld. Assessing Officer and added that the alleged document, i.e., MOU contains all the necessary information including the name of the purchaser, seller, description of the properties, rate per sq. yards and total area of land along with conditions of payment an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the course of proceedings before us, ld. Counsel has mainly contended that the alleged document, i.e., MOU and kaccha chitthi, are unsigned, undated and mere draft and is a dumb document which ld. Assessing Authority should not have taken. We notice that the alleged document MOU is filed at page No.15-21 of the paper-book and kaccha chitthi at Page Nos. 22-23 and observe that the Memorandum of Understanding is prepared on a stamp paper dated 31.10.2007 between Uma Shakti Corporation Kalol Project, being the purchaser and the selling parties and this MOU is undated and only the stamp is of November 2007. There appears no signature of either of the parties on any of the pages. Even kaccha chitthi is also unsigned which speaks about a rough draft showing a partnership firm to be incorporated and there are other notings about installments and an amount of Rs. 51,00,000/- is written on the last page of the kaccha chitthi. Ld. Assessing Officer has made the impugned addition on the basis of these documents. Now, the question arises before us is whether this unsigned, undated MOU and kachha chitthi can be taken as corroborative evidence against the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween narrations available on page no.7 to 10 of the paper book i.e. seized material vis-à-vis alleged book results by the assessee. However, the ld.CIT-DR could point out that on page no.7 i.e. 2nd page of the seized paper, name of Ashish J. Shah was mentioned. It contemplates business of Balaji Mall. On an analytical examination of these details, we find that some narrations here and there, are having a slight connection with the shops, but it is difficult to arrive at logical conclusion. The stand of the assessee before the AO was that these papers can be divided in three parts viz. (a) typed documents, hand written documents in Gujarati pertaining to Shree Balaji Mall and other hand written documents written in English with certain numbers mentioned in it. According to the assessee these hand-written documents in English is neither of Balaji Mall nor of the company. These papers have neither been drawn by the directors or their family members. This aspect was not only explained during the course of assessment proceedings, but even during the course of search itself. Against this stand of the assessee, the department did not take any step to investigate the issue further. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, discarded such objections and ruled that the presumption against the assessee would arise. On such basis, he made addition of Rs. 30,27,987/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer, once again placing heavy reliance upon section 132(4A) of the Act. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal. The Tribunal reversed the view of the revenue authorities and allowed the appeal of the assessee, making following observations : "17. We have heard both the sides. We have perused the material placed before us. As per the document placed on page No.179 of the compilation, it had reflected some business transaction in respect of oil and kerosene oil. As per this typed document, there was a mention of parties from whom a business activity was performed. The figures have mentioned the rates applied for the said commodity and the details of the amount received. This document in fact appears to be in respect of some "oilbusiness" but there is no denial of this admitted fact that the assessee is in the business of Transport. Hence, a vehement contention is that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act would apply. 6. We are of the opinion that the entire issue is based on appreciation of the material on record. Section 132(4A) of the Act uses the words "may presume", meaning thereby that such presumption is rebuttable. In the present case, documents found pertain to entries related to oil business. The assessee's business at least accounted was of transportation. Revenue could not bring on record any material to suggest that the assessee was also involved in the business of dealing in oil. Additionally, the Tribunal has correctly recorded that the documents were dump documents. Revenue did not make any attempt to inquire into the matter further from the persons whose names were reflected in such entries. 7. In short, it cannot be stated that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. No error is committed by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed." 16. Going through the views expressed in the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court and decision of Co-ordinate Bench which gives fair view that if from the seized material no nexus or reasonable conclusion can be arrived, then even if the documents are seized during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested." From going through the above provision, we find that it uses the word "it may be presumed", which as rightly held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmendrasinh Waghela that the word "may presume" that such presumption is rebuttable in a situation if Revenue could not bring on record any material to prove that the seized material is corroborative for the addition. We are, therefore, respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the partner Mr. Bhagwanbhai K. Ajara was receiving on-money from the project of the assessee-firm and was recording it properly in the diary and was putting names of fictitious persons to show that he had borrowed money from elsewhere. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that Mr. Bhagwanbhai K. Ajara has already offered a notional income of Rs. 23 lacs in his return of income for AY 2010-11 and therefore this disclosure covers the entire interest paid by the appellant and not recorded in the books of accounts. 23. Aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 24. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that Mr. Bhagwanbhai K. Ajara was the main person looking after the flats/shops of the Kalol project and he used to note the details of funds received from various members of Kalol project. Such notings were made in the name of fictitious persons just to hide the actual details of on-money received. As the seized diary contained details of the on-money received from assessee-firm project, there was actually no interest payment because the transactions in the diary were of on-money recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT(A). In the result, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 26. Next common ground relates to addition of Rs. 4,35,39,800/- made on account of unaccounted collection/receipts by the Assessing Officer on the basis of seized material which was not accounted for in the regular books of accounts. 27. Brief facts related to this ground are that during the course of search, certain documents containing receipts of sale proceeds were seized and further, when explanation was called for by the Assessing Officer, the assessee worked out unaccounted turnover of Rs. 5,44,39,800/- and offered income of Rs. 109 lacs by calculating the embedded net profit @ 20% of the unaccounted turnover. However, ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,35,39,800/-, after giving set off of Rs. 109 lacs offered by assessee against the unaccounted turnover of Rs. 5,44,39,800/-. 28. When the issue came up before the ld. CIT(A), he was of the view that only profit element embedded in the unaccounted turnover can be added in the hands of the assessee; however, the ld. CIT(A) adopted net profit rate of 30% as against 20% shown by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , however, did not accept the contentions and after giving set off of Rs. 109 lacs against the unaccounted turnover of Rs. 544 lacs, made the impugned addition of Rs. 435 lacs. However, ld. CIT(A), after following various decisions, especially the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries (supra), wherein it has been held that "entire undisclosed sales could not be added as income of assessee but addition could be made only to the extent of estimated profits embedded in sales for which net profit rate was adopted." The ld. CIT(A), following these judgments, observed that only the profit element should be taxed and not the total turnover. However, he applied the rate of 30% by following the rate adopted by Income-Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s. Silver Springs and M/s. Rushabh Vatika. We further observe that during the course of appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), assessee has given five comparable cases wherein judgments of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad were taken the basis which related to similar type o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. CIT(A) has just made guess work of estimating 30% net profit rate. We are, therefore, of the view that even in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the net profit rate offered by the assessee is much more than its normal gross profit and net profit rate consistently offered in its return of income and also in the given fact when the unaccounted turnover is not disputed by the Revenue Authorities, we are of the view that income offered by the assessee at 20% should have been accepted by the Assessing Authorities and no further addition was called for. We accordingly allow the ground of the assessee and dismissed that of the Revenue. 33. Now, we take up cross-appeals by assessee and Revenue for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the case of Shri Bhagwanbhai Karmanbhai Ajara in IT(SS)A Nos. 194 & 195/Ahd/2013 for 2009-10 and ITA Nos. 1373 & 1375/Ahd/2013 for 2010-11 respectively. Grounds of appeal raised in all these four appeals read as under:- IT(SS)A No.194/Ahd/2013 : AY-2009-10 : Revenue's appeal 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law .and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,92,750/- out of total ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt received during the year from Nicol land transaction recorded in the diaries seized from the residence of the assessee. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. ITA No.1375/Ahd/2013 : AY-2010-11 : Assessee's appeal 1. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact confirming addition of Rs. 25,75,000/- as profits from Ognaj Land as unexplained investment, whereas such amounts are duly considered in the income offered in IT Return of Rs. 38 lac. Such addition amounts to double addition. It is therefore prayed that addition so made may kindly be deleted. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact confirming addition of Rs. 25,75,000/- as profits from Ognaj Land as unexplained investment, whereas the appellant has made payments for Dalali of Rs. 75,000/- and reduced Bana amount of Rs. 150,000/-, thus, there is net profit of Rs. 22.75 lac, which is offered in the income offered in IT Return of Rs. 38 lac. It is therefore prayed that addition so made may kindly be deleted. 3. Your appellant craves libe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ashakti Corporation Kalol Project itself had been utilized by the appellant to advance money to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project to earn interest had been accepted. It was held that since the money belonged to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project itself hence there was no question of paying interest to Bhagwanbhai K Ajara. 6.1 In view of the fact that the CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 3,92,750/- made, in the case of Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project indicates that the principal amount on which this interest had been worked out belonged to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project. However, the Assessing Officer has observed that the entries made in the diaries do not match with the sale of flats recorded by the entities of this group hence the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the funds recorded in the diary were on-money receipt of projects. This contention of the Assessing Officer has been rejected by the CIT(A) in the case of Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project in A.Y.2009-10. It is seen that the appellant had shown interest income to the extent of Rs. 5,87,250/- out of which Rs. 3,92,750/- was from the firm where t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,92,750/- is concerned, we observe that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the impugned addition following the order of ld. CIT(A)'s order in the case of USCKP, wherein it has been held that ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly made an addition of unaccounted interest payment. As the impugned disallowance has been deleted in the hands of payer, there cannot be any addition in the hands of payee, i.e., assessee. As regard the balance amount of interest from others at Rs. 1,94,500/- is concerned, we accept the contentions of ld. Counsel that the impugned amount of Rs. 1,94,500/- forms part of total disclosure of Rs. 163 lacs made by USCKP which, inter alia, includes income from notings in assessee's diaries at Rs. 23 lacs. Therefore, no separate addition is called for in respect of such interest. In the result, ground No.1 of the Revenue's appeal for AY 200910 is dismissed and that of assessee's is allowed. 40. Revenue's next common issue raised in Ground No.2 for AY 2009-10 and AY 20010-11 is against the deletion of addition of Rs. 46,91,750/- and Rs. 1,42,59,250/- out of total addition of Rs. 66,36,750/- and Rs. 1,68,34,250/- respectively made by ld. Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence there was no question of paying interest to Bhagwanbhai K Ajara. 8.1 In view of the fact that the CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 3,92,750/- made, in the case of Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project indicates that the principal amount on which this interest had been worked out belonged to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol project. However, the Assessing Officer has observed that the entries made in the diaries do not match with the sale of flats recorded by the entities of this group hence the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the funds recorded in the diary were on-money receipt of projects. This contention of the Assessing Officer has been rejected by the CIT(A) in the case of Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project in A.Y.2009-10. It is seen that the appellant had shown interest income to the extent of Rs. 5,87,250/- out of which Rs. 3,92,750/- was from the firm where the appellant was a partner. The CIT(A) has held that in A.Y.2009-10 the amount of Rs. 3,92,750/- was not unrecorded expenses of the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project because the firm's own on-money had been utilised in granting loans to the firm itself by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ti Corporation Kalol Project in A.Y.2009-10 in appeal No.CIT(A)I/CC.1(1)/308/2011-12 vide order dated 18.07.2012 has held that the sum of Rs. 3,92,750/- added by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed interest payment by the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project to the appellant was not correct. The contention that the on-money collection from the projects of the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project itself had been utilized by the appellant to advance money to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project to earn interest had been accepted. It was held that since the money belonged to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol project itself hence there was no question of paying interest to Bhagwanbhai K Ajara. 9.1 In view of the fact that the CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 3,92,750/- made, in the case of Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project indicates that the principal amount on which this had been worked out belonged to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project. However, the Assessing Officer has observed that the entries made in the diaries do not match with the sale of flats recorded by the entities of this group hence the Assessing Officer has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted investment in land by way of Banakhat dated 6.11.2009 in purchase of land at survey No.1195 Ognaj. The amount of cash paid at the time of banakhat wasRs. 25,00,000/-. No separate addition has been made by the Assessing Officer because this amount has been included in the peak working of Rs. 1,68,34,250/-. In view of the fact that in the earlier paragraph it has been noted that peak working cannot be resorted to in this case because substantial money belongs to the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project. However the investment made by the appellant are not assets of the firm Umashakti Corporation Kalol Project hence no benefit for Rs. 25,00,000/- can be granted to the appellant. The contention that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was recorded in the books of accounts was recorded in the diary seized during search is questionable because the Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding that the transaction was not recorded in the books of accounts and all thorough the assessment proceedings the appellant denied any ownership of lands based on the said banakhat. 9.5 As far as the payment of commission of Rs. 75,000/- recorded in the diary is concerned, the A.R. of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmon issue raised by both the Revenue and assessee emanates out of the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer by calculating peak balance from the transactions appearing in the seized diaries at Annexure A/1 and Annexure A/2 which contains entries with respect to inflow and outflow of funds. Peak addition of Rs. 66,36,750/- and Rs. 1,68,34,250/- was made by ld. Assessing Officer. We observe that ld. CIT(A) has held that the entire peak cannot be added in the hands of assessee since the substantial money of such peak belongs to USCKP, wherein assessee is a partner and profit elements embedded therein has already been offered to income tax by USCKP in its income-tax returns. However, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 19,45,000/- for AY 2009-10 by calculating the principal amount of the alleged interest addition sustained at Rs. 1,94,500/- and calculated the amount at Rs. 19,45,000/- by assuming the interest rate of 10%. For AY 2010-11, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 25,75,000/- by observing that there is an unaccounted investment of the assessee in the Ognaj land as he is entered into a banakhat dated 06.11.2009 for project of land at Surv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 entered into by assessee for projects of land at Survey No.1195 at Ognaj and a cash sum of Rs. 25 lac was paid alongwith brokerage of Rs. 75,000/-, totaling to Rs. 25,75,000/-. In the record placed before us, we find that there was no proof found during the course of search to show that assessee is owner of the Survey No.1195, Ognaj and there was merely a banakhat showing the cash payment of Rs. 25 lacs paid towards project of land. Ld. Counsel has contended that Rs. 25 lacs was actually received as profit from cancellation of banakhat of Ognaj land by the assessee in the capacity of middleman. In fact, such sum was actually received on 06.11.2009 against which assessee has paid the dalali/commission of Rs. 75,000/- which is evident from page 129 of the seized records at Annexure A/1 and further assessee has also accounted for Rs. 1,50,000/- in books of accounts against the banakhat account given in FY 2007-08. It was further contended that as against such profits assessee has declared interest income of Rs. 21,57,250/- for USCKP and Rs. 5,84,000/- from others aggregating to Rs. 27,41,250/- out of which only Rs. 3,89,500/- has been actually received and balance sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 45,25,000/- after excluding Rs. 11,60,000/- from the sum of Rs. 52,20,000/-. We further observe that it is not the case of the Revenue that assessee is owner of the land at Nicol which is also evident from the fact that during the course of extensive search, no purchase deed with respect to purchase of land at Nicol by assessee was found and there cannot be a question of selling the impugned land and receiving the sale consideration if there was no purcahse. We also observe that in the alleged seized material the word 'dalali' is appearing which is a Hindi version of the English word 'commission/brokerage' and which means that assessee was also earning brokerage from various land dealings. The alleged transactions of value of land are only the basis for calculating brokerage income. It is also not disputed that assessee has shown a brokerage income of Rs. 5,44,656/- out of such deal of sale of land at Nicol and this income has been offered to tax for AY 2010-11. We further observe that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition by giving common observation for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 which reads as follows:- "10. I have gone through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively has been rightly deleted by ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this ground which is upheld. In the result, Ground No.3 of Revenue's appeal for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11 are dismissed. 54. Now, we take up Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue for AY 2010-11 challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/-made under Section 69 of the Act toward unaccounted investments in the Samarpan Scheme. 55. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that during the assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer found that Mr. Vikas R. Patel, partner of USCKP made in his statement dated 05.03.2010 recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act that five persons mentioned therein including the assessee were supposed to contribute Rs. 1.50 crores in the Samarpan Scheme; however, till the date of search only Rs. 45,00,000/- was contributed. Further from page No.145 of Annexure-A/1, ld. Assessing Officer found that there was a noting of contribution of Rs. 9,00,000/- in the Samarpan Scheme and merel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the assessment proceedings of M/s. Uma Shakti Corporation. It is also seen that the total funds contributed in cash amounted to Rs. 45,00,000/- was by five partners who contributed Rs. 9,00,000/- each whereas the firm M/s. Uma Shakti Corporation has the following partners : Sr.No. Name Share 1. Shri Vikas Ramchandra Patel 10% 2. Shir Bhagwan Karamanbhai Ajara 35% 3. Shri Brijesh Sukhdevbhai Patel 10% 4. Shri Deepak Govindbhai Prajapati 15% 5. Shri Arvind Natvarlal Prajapati 10% 6. Shri Kamalbhai Jayantibhai Patel 20% TOTAL 100% If it was a fact that the amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- have been contributed by five partners @ Rs. 9,00,000/- each from their own sources then there would have been no occasion to offer the profit in the hands of the firm where there were six partners. This is to say that if five persons had contributed towards cost of lands then there would have been no reason for them to share the profit from the transactions with the sixth person i.e. Shri Kamalbhai Jayantibhai Patel who had not contributed any capital. It is also to be noted that the profit sharing ratio of all the partners in the firm is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
