https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61343 The Tribunal upheld the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263, citing the IAC(Asst.)'s role akin to an ITO. It rejected the complete merger argument, applying the doctrine of partial merger. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,40,000 to outgoing partners, the Tribunal found it justifiable as a deduction for future profits, supported by relevant case law. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed jurisdictional and merger contentions but allowed the deduction, partially granting the appeal. en-us Fri, 30 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 12:45:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61343 The Tribunal upheld the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263, citing the IAC(Asst.)'s role akin to an ITO. It rejected the complete merger argument, applying the doctrine of partial merger. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,40,000 to outgoing partners, the Tribunal found it justifiable as a deduction for future profits, supported by relevant case law. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed jurisdictional and merger contentions but allowed the deduction, partially granting the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61343