1979 (7) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1968, and from October 11, 1968, to March 31, 1969, as per the separate returns filed for the said periods, should not be completed separately in the assessment made on the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1969-70 ? " We may notice the admitted facts as disclosed from the statement of the case submitted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. For the assessment year 1969-70, the respondent firm, M/s. Allada Kanthayya and others, bad filed two separate returns of income for the following two periods, viz., from April 1, 1968, to October 10, 1968, and from October 11, 1968, to March 31, 1969. The assessee claimed that the assessment should be made separately for the two periods on the ground that there was a dissoluti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lea of succession made by the assessee was rejected. However, the Tribunal did not agree with the revenue that the income of the firm as constituted under the deed of the partnership dated April 1, 1969, comprising of four partners should be clubbed with that of the firm constituted under the deed of partnership dated October 11, 1968, which comprised of six partners and held that the ITO erred in clubbing together the income in respect of the periods from April 1, 1968, to October 10, 1968, and from October II, 1968, to March 31, 1969, with a direction to compute the tax separately for the aforesaid two periods of assessment. Hence this reference. Sri P. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the revenue, contended that the Tribunal, ha....