TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, the Tribunal) in ITA.Nos.838 to 842/Mds/1993 respectively for the assessment years 1987-88, 1987-88, 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1988-89. 3. The above tax case appeals are admitted on 16.6.2009 on the following redrafted substantial questions of law : "TCA.Nos.601 of 2007 & 301 of 2009 : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not considering and following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant's son, while deciding the issue of allowing expenditure u/s.37 of Income Tax Act, 1961, in arriving at the taxable income from bus operation for similar bus routes?" and 2. Whether o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not considering and following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant's son, while deciding the issue of allowing expenditure u/s.37 of Income Tax Act, 1961, in arriving at the taxable income from bus operation for similar bus routes? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not holding that the credits in capital account, offered as business income should be telescoped for the purpose of arriving net income and whereby confirmed double addition under head 'business'? And 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f paddy & rice - - Q3 - - 5. The first substantial question of law, which arises for consideration in all the appeals, is with regard to the estimate of bus income. The Tribunal, in the impugned common order, has not taken note of the decision rendered by it earlier in the case of the assessee's son. So far as the bus income is concerned, the Tribunal observed that in their considered opinion, the estimation of assessee's daily receipt from plying of bus for 173 days at Rs. 1,350/- per day, as worked out by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was reasonable and not excessive and accordingly, rejected the contention raised by the assessee. 6. The assessee's specific case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness income should be telescoped for the purpose of arriving at the net income and whereby confirmed the double addition under the head 'business'. In fact, this question relates to telescoping of bus income, which, according to the assessee, is required to be done to avoid double addition. A similar issue arises in TCA.No.299 of 2009 wherein substantial question of law No.3 relates to telescoping with regard to the income from sale of paddy and rice. Thus, substantial question of law No.2 in TCA.Nos.299, 300 and 302 of 2009 and substantial question of law No.3 in TCA.No.299 of 2009 are similar except the difference being one relates to income from bus and the other relates to income from sale of paddy and rice. 9. We need not la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income from business. 12. This leaves us with two more issues namely with regard to the share income/loss from transport business in the bigger HUF and from the business of provisions stores in the name and style of Dhanapal Maligai (smaller HUF). The assessee offered the income in the HUF. However, the Assessing Officer held that it should be assessed in the hands of the individual. 13. We have examined the correctness of the findings rendered by the Assessing Officer on this issue and we find that the Assessing Officer has actually recorded a finding that the assessee became a partner of Dhanapal Maligai, that the capital was Rs. 30,000/- as on 30.6.1986 and Rs. 3.5 lakhs as on 30.6.1987 and that the investment in the firm has not been....