Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat madras Year: 1999 Page 1 of about 3 results (0.116 seconds)

Jul 09 1999 (TRI)

Sandeep S. Shah Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Jul-09-1999

Reported in : (2000)73ITD313(Mad.)

..... and the ao. he argued that the word 'company' appearing in cl. (b) of s. 88(2)(xv) of the it act had a wide meaning and it included aop, partnership and other combination of individuals. he also contended that the word 'member' appearing in the said clause was also not applicable in ..... the intention of the legislature to encourage savings and to chanelise the savings for construction of residential house which is a scarce item in the indian economy.4. on the other hand, the learned departmental representative strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities and contended that no interference was ..... or body which is or was assessable or was assessed as a company for any assessment year under the indian it act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or which is or was assessable or was assessed under this act as a company for any assessment year commencing on or before the 1st april, 1970, or (iv) ..... any institution, association or body, whether incorporated or not and whether indian or non-indian, which is declared by general or special order of the board ..... investments. if the assessee's argument is accepted the investment in housing developed by any entity not being those mentioned in s. 88 of the it act would be eligible for rebate, which is not intention of the legislature because if it was so the legislature would have included such entities also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1999 (TRI)

T. R. Ganapathy Chettiar Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Feb-01-1999

Reported in : (1999)70ITD127(Mad.)

..... supreme court's decision in sunil siddharthbhai's case (supra) wherein it was held that an asset belonging to an individual partner was brought to the partnership business towards his capital. the transaction, no doubt, amounted to a transfer. in this case also, the transfer is very much involved when once the ..... held on the basis of the supreme court and madras high court decisions cited in para 10 of his order that the conversion of proprietary business into partnership business involved transfer. he held that the obiter in s. balasubramanian's case (supra) holding that the decision in the case of dalmia magnesite corpn.( ..... . (see finance minister's budget speech 1961-62 41 itr st. 33 at 55 p. 97 and s. 6 of finance act, 1961).10. when the indian it act, 1922 was substituted by the it act, 1961, s. 32 provided for development rebate as before on almost identical terms. sub-s. (5) enabled the government to ..... the facts are that the assessee-firm was constituted with 4 partners on 1st september, 1960. two of them retired and the partnership was reconstituted with the remaining two partners who continued the same business. on 3rd march, 1968, one of the two partners died. as a result, the ..... , the investment allowance already granted is to be withdrawn.the case of conversion of proprietary business into partnership business has been held to be "transfer" in terms of s. 34(3)(b) of the it act, 1961 so as to warrant the withdrawal of development rebate by relying on the ratio of the supreme .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 21 1999 (TRI)

L. Saroja Vs. Assistant Commissioner

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Madras

Decided on : Oct-21-1999

Reported in : (2001)76ITD344(Mad.)

..... 2. m/s. rana cotton yarn centre, erode. (shri k. v. laxmanan is a partner). 4. m/s. j.s. & company, erode. (originally a partnership firm and with effect from 1-4-1991 a proprietary concern of shri k. v. laxmanan). 5. m/s. ran angappa mudaliar, erode. (shri. saroja, wife of ..... are of the considered opinion that the supreme court decision rendered in the context of jurisdiction under section 18aa(1)(") of the industries (development & regulation) act, 1951 is not on all fours with the case on hand. in the case before us the question of jurisdiction does not arise. in that case ..... supreme court in the case of swadeshi cotton milk co. ltd. (supra). that was a case arising under section 18aa of industries (development & regulation) act, 1951 in regard to the takeover of management of an industrial undertaking. the section was silent on the rule of 'audi alteram partem'. the apex court ..... records was illegal, the same could not be used for making the block assessment on the persons not subjected to search under section 132 of the act, 5.3 shri t. goraknathan, the learned senior departmental representative justified the seizure of books and records as they were found in the premises searched ..... laxmanan) either by the assessing officer at the time of search or subsequently by the assessing officer to invoke the provisions of section 158bd of the act and consequently the block assessment require to be annulled. 3. the block assessment under section 158bd is bad in law, as there was no document .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //