9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Arun Kumar Mundra Co. Is carrying on business in share dealings at Dinbazar, Jalpaiguri. It filed a return on 9th March, 1979 showing a total income of Rs. 20,300. This income was accepted by the ITO vide his order dt. 30th April, 1979. As there was no claim for registration, the firm was treated as unregistered firm. The partnership deed under which the assessee firm was formed stated tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO was not justified in making the allocation of the profits of the firm among the 3 partners to be assessed separately in their individual hands. He relied on an article on "Recent Trends in Tax Planning" by Sri K.H. Kaji reported in Current Tax Reporter Vol. 8 dt. 15th Jan., 1979. In that article it is stated that application of s. 13 of the Partnership Act could be negatived by express agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der which it was assessed. This being a legal contention and going to the root of the matter, we admit the ground. 4. The ld. Deptl. Representative submitted that no appeal is provided under s. 246(c) as per the additional ground of appeal filed. The assessee's representative, on the other hand, urged that the allocation of profits between the partners is called for only in the case of a regist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsel, whether by objecting to the allocation of profits between the partners, it was his intention that the share of profit should not be taken for rate purposes in the assessment of the partners and thus render s. 86(iii) otiose. He was fair enough to state that that was not the intention. Under the circumstances, it hardly matter whether the allocation is made in the body of the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
