9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity opinion and whether its decision is in accordance with the procedure laid down in section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act" In the Wealth-tax case, question No. (1) was framed as above with the only change in the provision of section 24(11) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, which makes section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applicable. Question No. (2) was framed as under in one of the appeals : "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that there was a valid partition of the immovable property known as 'Amritsar Cotton Mills' with effect from July 1, 1970 ?" In the two other appeals, a similar question was framed with the addition that such income from the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the majority decision of the Bench of the Tribunal was to prevail and in case of difference of opinion among equal number of members of the Tribunal, the matter was further required to be decided by one or the other members of the Tribunal and according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Appellate Tribunal who heard the case, including those who first heard it, was to prevail. Thus, it is the final conclusion of majority of the members of the Tribunal which was to prevail. In this view of the matter, the majority decision in the present case was that of the Judicial Member and the Vice President that the income from the property of Amritsar Cotton Mills was to be considered the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the partnership firm. In such circumstances, no deed of transfer was required to be executed or registered as held by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Juggilal Kamalapat [1967] 63 ITR 292 as under (at page 298) : "The deed of relinquishment, in this case, was in respect of the individual interest of the three Singhania Brothers in the assets of the partner ship firm in favour of the Kamala Town Trust, and, consequently, did not require registration, even though the assets of the partnership firm included immovable property, and was valid without registration." On dissolution, the partners would get their respective share in the assets. Since two Hindu undivided families were partners in the said firm, on dissolution, the character of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
