TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t a partner. (b) The CIT(A) erred in directing to allow exemption under section 10(2A) relying on the decisions which either relate to pre-amendment position or not squarely applicable in the present case. 2. Since both the grounds of appeal are correlated and as the facts and circumstance in both the years under appeal are same, they all are being disposed of together for the sake of convenience. 3. The brief facts of the case are that Sri Radha Krishna Jallan is a partner in the firm known as M/s. Rock International, Calcutta. In order to meet his capital contribution in the said partnership firm M/s. Rock International, Sri Jallan entered into another sub-partnership styled M/s. Radhakishan Jallan (assessee) on 1 -4-1995 by whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan v. CIT [1956] 29 ITR 535 and also on the judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Alisher Contractors [ 1986] 159 ITR 534. He also observed that the charge of tax on the assessee partnership did not amount to double taxation. Further, he was of the view that since there is no double taxation there is no scope of allowing exemption under section 10(2A) to the assessee firm. The argument of the assessee that since the income of M/s. Rock International, Kolkata was entitled to deduction under section 80HHC, the share of its partners shall also be exempt from tax, was also found not acceptable by the Assessing Officer as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the total income of the firm." Thus, a reading of the section shows that it is applicable in case of a person who is a partner in a firm, which is separately assessed to tax as a firm. In view of the facts of the present case as discussed above, we found that the assessee firm is not a partner in any firm and nor legally it can be a partner in any firm. Thus, in our considered view the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that the income received by the assessee firm by virtue of its superior title over the share of income receivable by Shri Radhakishan Jallan, is exempt under section 10(2A) of the I.T. Act, in the hands of the assessee firm. 6. The other section under which the learned A/R of the assessee relied upon for his conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise receivable by Sri Radhakishan Jallan from the partnership firm styled M/s. Rock International. Thus, the assessee firm has not sold any goods during the years under consideration. It was also the argument of the learned A/R of the assessee that the character of the above income of the assessee is same as the character of the income earned by M/s. Rock International and as the income has been held as exempt in the hands of M/s. Rock International, the income in hands of the assessee-firm also ought to be held as an exempt income. For this reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT v. Gopalkrishna M. Singre [1995] 214 ITR 443 (Bom.) and in the case of CIT v. Brij Raman Das [1979] 118 ITR 397 (All.) (wrongly referred by t....