TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules partnership reconstitution not a transfer; ITO's withdrawal of investment allowance invalid</h1> <h3>Jain Brothers. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the reconstitution of the partnership did not amount to a transfer of assets. It found the ITO's ... House Property, Penalty For Concealment Issues:Withdrawal of investment allowance under section 155(4A), Transfer of assets due to reconstitution of the firm, Time limitation for rectification under section 155(4A).Analysis:1. The appeal addressed the withdrawal of investment allowance under section 155(4A, where the firm underwent reconstitution due to partners' retirement and formation of new partnerships. The issue revolved around the transfer of assets upon reconstitution, leading to the withdrawal of investment allowance by the ITO.2. The assessee contended that there was no transfer of assets based on legal precedents, arguing that dissolution or reconstitution of a firm does not constitute asset transfer. However, the Commissioner upheld the ITO's decision, stating that reconstitution led to asset transfer, justifying the withdrawal of investment allowance.3. The debate on time limitation under section 155(4A) arose, with the assessee arguing that the action was time-barred. The contention was that the time limit under section 154 did not apply to section 155, as they were based on different grounds. The assessee also highlighted that the issue of asset transfer was debatable, making section 154 inapplicable.4. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of section 155(4A) and section 154 regarding time limitation. It clarified that section 155(4A) imposed a specific time limit for its application, distinct from section 154. The Tribunal emphasized that the mention of the four-year period in section 154 was to establish a time limit, ensuring that actions under section 155(4A) were subject to a defined timeframe.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the reconstitution of the partnership did not constitute a transfer of assets. It deemed the ITO's action under section 155 invalid due to exceeding the time limit, concluding that the investment allowance withdrawal was unwarranted. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
