| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2649 2011 SLD 2649 (2011) 336 ITR 303 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Nand Lal Labhu Ram*
Law:
Section:
Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Firm - Assessed as such - Assessment year 1993-94 - Where there is no change in constitution of an assessee-firm and it has filed copy of partnership deed and complied with all procedural requirements of Act, assessee is liable to be assessed in capacity of a partnership firm [In favour of assessee] The assessee filed its return wherein it claimed its status as PFAS. The Assessing Officer concluded that the status of the assessee was merely that of an 'AOP'. Once that was so, no deduction was admissible to the assessee on account of salary and interest paid to the partners under section 40(b). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to be treated as PFAS and deduction on account of payment of salary and interest to the partners was also allowable to the assessee. Held that the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that there was no change in the constitution of the firm and the assessee had filed a copy of the partnership deed which was signed by all the partners. It was further recorded that the procedural requirement of the Act had been complied with and, therefore, the assessee was liable to be assessed in the capacity of a partnership firm. The revenue had not been able to show any perversity in the said findings except trying to persuade the instant Court to re-appraise the evidence. Therefore, there was no ground to interfere with the aforesaid findings. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga for the Appellant. H.N. Mehtani for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - The paper-book of this case is said to have been burnt in the fire incident that took place in the premises of this court on the night of January 30, 2011. Learned counsel for the appellant has made available two copies of the paper-book to the Registry for reconstruction of the file. The said copies are taken on record. The paper-book of this appeal is treated as having been reconstructed. 2. This order will dispose of two appeals, i.e., Income-tax Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 2005 as identical questions are involved therein. The facts have been taken from Income-tax Appeal No. 162 of 2005. 3. This…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492