1984 (6) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Court because the ITO has himself given necessary relief to the assessee on the issue involved in this ground. Therefore, this ground goes out of consideration. 3. The only other ground that survived for consideration is regarding the addition of Rs. 10,000 made to the total income of the assessee firm on account of low withdrawals by its partners in their household expenses. 4. I have h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... deen Thamby Co. vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 481 (AP) (ii) Harwarmal Onkarmal vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 779 (Pat) (iii) CIT vs. Kapur Brothers (1979) 10 CTR (All) 280 : (1979) 118 ITR 741 (All) (iv) Banta Sinch Kartar Singh vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 239 (P H) It was contended that the agreement was clear and understandable to the assessee that there was no misconception and that the assessee co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench held that though the firm is not generally anything but a compendious name for its partners, yet for purposes of the Act i.e., the IT Act, 1961, the firm has a separate entity from its partners. The income of the partners cannot be treated as that of the firm unless the statute provides for it. 6. It is thus clear that for low withdrawals of the partner for which add .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X