2002 (9) TMI 18

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dgment of the court was delivered by G. SIVARAJAN J.- The question referred at the instance of the Department in all the four cases is the same and it reads as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no element of gift was involved when the assessee retired from the firm in which he was a partner?" The respondents-asses ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] 201 ITR 104 (Ker) was rendered following the earlier decision of this court in CGT v. T.M. Luiz Kannamally [1989] 180 ITR 257, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in CGT v. T.M. Louiz [2000] 245 ITR 831. Senior counsel however contended that there is a distinction in this case in that on retirement of the assessees from the partnership firm, M/s. Hotel Yuvarani, new partners have been i....