1982 (4) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal, that the transfer of the truck by the applicant to the firm of which he was a partner constituted a " sale " and thereby attracted, the provisions of section 41(2) was correct in law ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 6,835 more than the written down value. In the assessment proceedings, the ITO added this amount as assessable income under s. 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order became final after it was upheld in appeal by the AAC. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income of Rs. 6,835 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In these proceedings, the assessee submitted that the tran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the partners collectively. On the principle that person cannot sell to himself, the Madras High Court has held in D. Kanniah Pillai v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 520 that when a partner transfers assets to a partnership there is no sale and s. 41(2) is not attracted. It is not necessary for us to express any definite opinion on this question. All that we need say is that it is a possible view to take tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X