TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order will dispose of two appeals, i.e., Income-tax Appeals Nos. 162 and 163 of 2005 as identical questions are involved therein. The facts have been taken from Income-tax Appeal No. 162 of 2005. 3. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated September 16, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in I. T. A. No. 348/Chandi/2001, relating to the assessment year 1993-94. 4. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed for determination by this court : "(i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in observing that the controver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act and also for the reason that the assessment year 1993-94 was the first year of the changed partnership on account of change in partners, it was mandatory to file the original partnership deed specifying the interest, and the remuneration paid to the partners, which the assessee failed to do. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a photo copy of a partnership deed in which the names of the fathers of the partners had not been mentioned, and on the basis of that, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that the partnership deed, a photostat copy whereof had been furnished, had not been executed. On the basis of the above, the Assessing Officer, vide order dated March 24, 2000, concluded that the statu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recorded by the Assessing that the borrowed money or the part thereof had been utilized for the purposes other than the business. 7. The Tribunal, vide the order appealed against herein put its seal of affirmation on the finding returned by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The point for consideration in this case is, whether the assessee- respondent could be treated to be a partnership firm or it was to be assessed as an association of persons. 10. The Tribunal while upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was assessable as partnership firm and the relevant finding r....