2015 (9) TMI 1127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Shikha Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. T. M. Singh, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv ORDER This appeal concerns M/s. Video Master, a partnership firm, which is the assessee and the appellant before us. The controversy relates to the assessment for the block period 01.01.1985 to 24.08.1995. On two dates, v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessee partner on 25.08.1995 might not have been retracted in accordance with law, and was, therefore, still relevant, but could not be treated as conclusive. The matter was therefore, sent back to the Assessing Officer to give a fresh finding taking into account both, the statement made as well as other corroborative evidence. In the second round, the Assessment Order dated 29.03.2000 gave det....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der and arrived at a finding that the added income would be income which can be added under Section 158 BC for the block assessment period in question. In an appeal filed under Section 260A to the Bombay High Court, the High Court found, after narrating the facts, that no substantial question of law arises. We are of the view, in accordance with the view of the High Court, that no substantial q....