1983 (9) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erence under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is made at the instance of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore, Bangalore, and poses this question: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-firm was carrying on business before the appointed day and, hence, was entitled to the taxation concession as envisa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1964. The ITO did not permit the concession. The assessee preferred an appeal. Upon the basis of the material placed before him, the AAC held that the assessee had proved that the same entity had been carrying on business prior and after the appointed day under the Taxation Concessions Order and was entitled to the concession thereunder. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which agreed with the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the question should be refrained so that we would be enabled to decide whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had carried on business before the appointed day. He drew our attention to the judgment of this court in CIT v. Karandikar [1981] 129 ITR 609. This was a case in which the Tribunal had rejected the application for a reference, the Revenue had applied to the court u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Partnership Act had been extended to Goa only with effect from March 15, 1964, and that it would, therefore, be wrong to hold that a partnership could have existed in Goa prior to the appointed day. The Taxation Concessions Order conferred concessions, inter alia, upon assessees who had carried on business in Goa prior to the day appointed thereunder, i.e., December 20, 1961. If it could be estab....