9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Narain Dass retired from the partnership. The partnership was thereafter re-constituted on 15th Dec., 1977, which consisted of Om Prakash and Uma Shanker and two new partner Smt. Suraj Mukhi, wife of Laxmi Narain and Km. Mamta, daughter of Om Prakash. Arvind Kumar, minor son of Shri Shrikishan was also admitted to the benefits of partnership. The GTO found that Narain Das did not realise his in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was also contended that these two newly admitted partners had also brought fresh capital of Rs. 35,325 and Rs. 8,250 respectively in the firm during that year. Thus, the case put up by the assessee, Narain Das before the AAC was that the new partners were admitted to the partnership for adequate consideration and there was no gift by the assessee in favour of these two partners. Alternatively, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CGT vs. Premji Trikamji (1982) 133 ITR 317 (Bom) relied upon by the Departmental Representative have been discussed is, therefore, not necessary to dilate the arguments advanced by the respective representatives of the parties. 4. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, which referred to the case of CGT vs. Premji Trikamji mentioned as under: "The Court observed that no ascertain whether there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the benefits of the partnership." 5. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that unless it was found that the alleged abandonment of interest by the assessee in the assets of the firm was higher in value than the liabilities of the firm, there could not be any gift or deemed gift within the meaning of the GT Act. 6. Respectfully following the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, we set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
