1980 (2) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are some-what interesting. The facts of the case are as follows:- 2. The firm of M/s. Arun Kumar Mundra & Co. Is carrying on business in share dealings at Dinbazar, Jalpaiguri. It filed a return on 9th March, 1979 showing a total income of Rs. 20,300. This income was accepted by the ITO vide his order dt. 30th April, 1979. As there was no claim for registration, the firm was treated as unregis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the partners. (A) The assessee went in appeal before the AAC who held that the ITO was not justified in making the allocation of the profits of the firm among the 3 partners to be assessed separately in their individual hands. He relied on an article on "Recent Trends in Tax Planning" by Sri K.H. Kaji reported in Current Tax Reporter Vol. 8 dt. 15th Jan., 1979. In that article it is stated th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the amount of income assessed nor to the amount of tax determined nor the status under which it was assessed. This being a legal contention and going to the root of the matter, we admit the ground. 4. The ld. Deptl. Representative submitted that no appeal is provided under s. 246(c) as per the additional ground of appeal filed. The assessee's representative, on the other hand, urged that the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the same order or not is an academic question. We asked Shri K. Ray, the assessee's ld. Counsel, whether by objecting to the allocation of profits between the partners, it was his intention that the share of profit should not be taken for rate purposes in the assessment of the partners and thus render s. 86(iii) otiose. He was fair enough to state that that was not the intention. Under the circum....