Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Year: 1987 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.053 seconds)

Oct 05 1987 (TRI)

Sushil Kishore Premchand Vs. Twelfth Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-05-1987

Reported in : (1988)26ITD285(Mum.)

..... the findings given by us which are summed up as under : (1) introduction of an asset by a person by way of capital contribution to a partnership firm on the occasion of his induction as a partner of that firm, though amounting to a transfer, is not such a transfer as to give rise ..... secondly, it is not disputed by any of the lower authorities that the property was transferred at cost at the time of assessee's admission to the partnership. thirdly, it would appear from the copy of the capital accounts and current accounts of the aesessee with the firm produced before us that no effort has ..... thirdly and finally, shri inamdar reiterated that the observations of the supreme court at page 523 squarely covered the case of the assessee in his favour. the partnership firm was genuine and not the result of a sham or unreal transaction. in any case, no such finding had been given in the firm's case ..... firm of mis.premchand roychand & sons with effect from 22-10-1979 which was the beginning of s.y. 2036. this fact was incorporated in the partnership deed dated 21-6-1979. by way of capital for being admitted as a partner, he brought in the property in the form of land and building ..... held that in order that a transfer must be one with the object of avoiding or reducing the liability of the assessee under section 12b (of the indian income-tax act, 1922), it must be a case where the consideration mentioned in the deed has been understated and actually the assessee has received more than what is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1987 (TRI)

Navinchandra H. Somaiya Vs. Ninth Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-05-1987

Reported in : (1987)21ITD410(Mum.)

..... litigation, yet it was for acquisition by government of right of the firm under agreement dated 9-11-1963. it was also submitted that since partnership deed did not single out this property (right under deed dated 9-11-1963) it could not be capital asset. this submission was also without ..... capital gains. we now proceed to give detailed reasons in support of the said conclusion.22. we have already quoted section 176(3a) of the act. the words therein are almost identical with those in section 176(4). the former applies to discontinuance of business while latter applies to discontinuance of ..... dissolution and the gains received by him on receipt of his share of compensation, would, therefore, be capital gains chargeable under section 45 of the act.17. before arriving at above conclusion, we have duly considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the department. his contention was that ..... the amount was received by former partner after such discontinuance, the same was chargeable to tax as business income under section 176(3a) of the act, with the result that the above-mentioned amount was chargeable to tax as business income under these two provisions read together. he negatived the ..... receipt of said amount gave rise to capital gains tax and not business income. the assessee claimed deduction under section 54e of the income-tax act, 1961. the working regarding capital gains given by the assessee was as under:capital receipt in feb. 1979 4,67,000less : proportionate share in .....

Tag this Judgment!

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