1982 (4) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he questions of law referred in this case by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal are as follows: " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal, that the transfer of the truck by the applicant to the firm of which he was a partner constituted a " sale " and thereby attracted, the provisions of section 41(2) was correct in law ? (2) Whether, on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....k belonging to him to the partnership. The sale price obtained by the assessee from the firm was Rs. 6,835 more than the written down value. In the assessment proceedings, the ITO added this amount as assessable income under s. 41(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessment order became final after it was upheld in appeal by the AAC. The ITO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tnership firm is not a legal entity. The name of the partnership is only a convenient mode of naming the partners collectively. On the principle that person cannot sell to himself, the Madras High Court has held in D. Kanniah Pillai v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 520 that when a partner transfers assets to a partnership there is no sale and s. 41(2) is not attracted. It is not necessary for us to express a....