https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23299 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the first floor of the building owned by the partnership firm was indeed used for business purposes. The court emphasized the significance of factual inferences in legal interpretations and upheld the firm's position that the occupation of the first floor by the partners was necessary for the efficient operation of their business activities. Consequently, the court rejected the Revenue's arguments and concluded that the rental income from the second floor should not be added to the firm's income. en-us Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:54:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23299 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the first floor of the building owned by the partnership firm was indeed used for business purposes. The court emphasized the significance of factual inferences in legal interpretations and upheld the firm's position that the occupation of the first floor by the partners was necessary for the efficient operation of their business activities. Consequently, the court rejected the Revenue's arguments and concluded that the rental income from the second floor should not be added to the firm's income. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 Sep 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23299