Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat mumbai Year: 2000 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.069 seconds)

Jan 11 2000 (TRI)

Smruti Trading Company Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-11-2000

..... not to him in his individual capacity. we cannot throw out notions of the partnership law even while considering a question arising under the it act, because s. 2(23) of the it act says that the expressions "firm", "partner" and "partnership" shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the indian partnership act, 1932, with the only exception that the expression "partner" would also include ..... a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership. thus, if under the partnership law, an huf as such ..... that the explanations were clarificatory and applied even to assessment years prior to asst. yr. 1985-86, thus, eliminating the rigour of the strict application of the principles of partnership law to income-tax assessments. however, these explanations are confined to payment of interest alone and therefore so far as the representative capacity is concerned, the same cannot be ..... 1. this appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the cit under s. 263 of the act on 12th january, 1997.2. the appeal arises this way. the assessee is a partnership firm consisting of two partners. one is m. h. patel, an individual, and the other is h. p. patel (huf). it is common ground .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 2000 (TRI)

P.R. Patel Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-08-2000

Reported in : (2001)78ITD51(Mum.)

..... the seized documents before drawing the inference from the entries made in such documents. our attention was also invited to section 110 of the indian evidence act under which the source and mode of acquisition of incriminating evidence may give rise to some presumption against the assessee. reliance was placed by ..... is not applicable to block assessment is of no consequence as the presumption could be raised under the provisions of section 110 of the indian evidence act.when a presumption could be raised under the provisions of any other law and the application of the provisions of such other law is ..... learned counsel of the assessee that the assessee has 30% of the share as per partnership deed and not 50%, it was argued by the learned departmental representative that the profit sharing ratio shown in the partnership deed does not apply to the income hidden from the knowledge of the department. it ..... . the assesses, an individual, is carrying on business of construction activities, in his own name and in the names of various partnership firms, where he is a partner. he has also dividend income, interest income, salaries from private limited companies and capital gains. ..... is further contended by the learned departmental representative that the hon'ble supreme court's decision in v.c. shukla's case (supra) is not relevant as it pertained to the criminal proceedings, but in the income-tax act .....

Tag this Judgment!

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