TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (10) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts of the case. For the assessment year 1957-58 the following two questions have been referred to this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liabilities levied on the firm of M/s. Manseta Bros. and the assessee individually subsequent to the relevant valuation date on the basis of the settlement of the disclosure peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....firm on March 13, 1963, were debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date and, therefore, allowable as deduction in computing the net wealth of the assessee ? 2. If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, then whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that no part of the said liability can be excluded u/s. 2(m)(iii) of the W.T. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alth of the assessee on the different valuation dates is to be included in his share in the income for the corresponding years it cannot be ignored that income-tax payable in respect of such amounts and that it was not his share in the gross amount of income that required to be included but that there should be a deduction in respect of the corresponding tax. Section 2(m)(iii) cannot apply in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account, one cannot ignore the tax liability of the firm in respect of the income that was concealed and had later been brought under consideration. We hold that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was correct in allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of the liabilities for tax as was subsequently levied on the firm and the assessee individually. There was no dispute before the Tribunal reg....