9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s v/s. ACIT, [ 2015 (3) TMI 1395 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein exactly similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by following the precedence being maintained on this issue by the Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra. Before us, assessee has not brought any material on record which is contrary to the decision of the Tribunal as aforesaid to enable this Bench to take a different view. - Decided against assesee. - ITA No. 4189/Mum./2019 - - - Dated:- 17-7-2021 - Saktijit Dey, Member (J) And S. Rifaur Rahman, Member (A) For the Appellant : Dharmendra Singh For the Respondents : T.S. Khalsa ORDER Per S. Rifaur Rahman, AM The present appeal has been filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 22nd June 2006, and was not diversion of income rather it was an overriding obligation of the firm that the payment to the spouse of the deceased Partner is required to be made and, hence needs to be allowed in the hands of the assessee Firm. The Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee disallowed the claim holding that this issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in favour of the Revenue in assessment year 2007-08. The assessee being aggrieved contested such disallowance before the first appellate authority. 4. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed following submissions in support of its claim. In this ground the appellant had challenged the addition made by Ld. AO in rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... practice in The name and style of the Firm, they will be permitted to do so, only so long as they make a payment to Mrs. Maneck J. Gagrat for and during her lifetime of ₹ 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only) per annum. Such payment to Mrs. Maneck J. Gagrat each month or in such installments, as she may require, such annuity shall be treated as a charge on the profits of the Firm. From the above it is clear that these payments were to be made to Mrs. Maneck J Gagrat under all circumstances and hence it is an overriding obligation on the firm that The payments be made to her. It is not a diversion of income and hence needs to be allowed in The hands of the firm. In support fits claim the appellant has placed reliance on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that payment made to Smt. Maneck Jahangir Garat, is diversion of income and not application of income which is also evident from the Clause-12:4 of the Partnership Deed. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the claim of the assessee. 7. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied upon the observations of the authorities below. 8. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is the case of the assessee that the assessee firm had made a payment of ₹ 12 lakh as payment of annuity to Smt. Maneck Jahangir Garat, who is the wife of the deceased Partner of the assessee firm Shri Jahangir Garat. This payment was made as per the agreed terms vide Clause-12:4 of the Partnership Deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
