Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 290 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Sunil Siddharthbhai Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad ... on 27 September, 1985

Dlf Universal Ltd,, New Delhi vs Assessee on 15 June, 2008

Therefore, if there are no assets left after paying of the losses and debts to the third party, a partner will not receive any amount either towards his capital or towards advance given over and above his capital. In either case it is not debt due by the firm to the partner which is like debt due to third parties. Therefore, merely because part of the value of land brought in as capital contribution is treated as loan over and above the capital agreed upon, it will not have an effect of creating a right in favour of assessee at the time of entering into partnership to receive such sum so as to treat the surplus as income accruing in favour of the partner. 47.4 It is also to be noted that in these years there is no finding that any amount was withdrawn by the assessee from the firm even though the accounts of the firm records the capital of the assessee as brought in. On the contrary, the facts remain that after introduction of land held as stock-in-trade as capital contribution, no part of the amount credited to capital account has been withdrawn till date. Therefore, the situation in this year is distinct than the situation prevailing for A.Y. 1992-93 which has been extensively discussed in Para 16.21 of the Draft Order and heavily relied upon to hold that the transaction is a colorable device. Thus even the "Word of Caution" as found in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai case (supra) are not applicable in all these years which are heavily relied upon to hold the introduction of capital as colorable device and for applying the ratio of McDowell case (supra). This factual situation is absent in relation to appeal for A.Y. 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. Therefore Page 229 of 230 ITA Nos. 3622/D/95, 2546/D/01, 3233/D/01, 267/D/03, 4986/D/03 even the finding for 1992-93 given in para 16 of the draft order will not apply in relation to other years as the factual situation differs materially. In view of above discussion, the surplus is not chargeable to tax for A. Y. 1997-98, 1998- 99,1999-2000 and 2000-01.Accordingly grounds raised in this regard as tabulated above are allowed and are decided in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 104 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 30 September, 2011

49.14. Thus it can be seen that the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mohanbhai Pamabhai (supra) has been partly approved in Sunil Siddharthbhai (supra) and Mohanbhai Pamabhai (supra) and partly not approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 68 I.T.A.No.3013/M/07 (S.B) B.C.Srinivasa Setty (supra). The only part of the judgment which has been approved is to the effect that on retirement or dissolution, what a partner receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transferring his interest in the firm to continuing partners. Nothing more and nothing else than it can be construed as having been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P. Ramachandra Reddiar And P. Arjuna ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 3 November, 1987

44. Notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunil Siddharthbhai's case [1985] 156 ITR 509 restating the principle highlighted in Narayanappa's case, AIR 1966 SC 1300, counsel for the Revenue submitted that, whatever be the position regarding the nature of a partner's interest in the assets of the firm, the fact remains that the assessees who are the partners of the old firm transferred the business of dry-cleaning and tailoring, by name Bright Dry Cleaners, as a running business, to the new firm constituted by the wives of these partners with a view to avoid payment of tax. Dilating on this point, he submitted that the business which was transferred to the spouses must be treated as business carried on by the assessees as they are the only partners of the firm and, under law, the business carried on by a firm is business carried on by its partners.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Acit 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs James P. Dsilva, Navi Mumbai on 30 January, 2019

14. The appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court was dismissed by a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat V/s. Mohanbhai Pamabhai4. The Supreme Court relied upon its judgment in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1985) 156 ITR 509 (S.C.). The Supreme Court reiterated the same principle by relying upon the judgment in Addanki Narayanappa & Anr. V/s. Bhaskara Krishnappa & Ors. [(1966) SC 1300]. The Supreme Court held that what is envisaged on the retirement of a partner is merely his right to realise his interest and to receive its value. What is realised is the interest which the partner enjoys in the assets during 4 165 ITR 166 the subsistence of the partnership by virtue of his status as a partner and in terms of the partnership agreement. Consequently, what the partner gets upon dissolution or upon retirement is the realisation of a pre-existing right or interest. The Supreme Court held that there was nothing strange in the law that a right or interest should exist in praesenti but its realisation or exercise should be postponed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust on 24 August, 2000

11. The question in this case is whether the relinquishment of the share of the assessee will amount to a gift. No question of evaluation of the partner's share comes up for consideration in this case. Hence, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in relying the decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT (supra) and holding that since the adequacy or inadequacy of consideration cannot be quantified, the transaction is not exigible to gift-tax. The Tribunal allowed the appeal only on the reasoning that the question of adequacy or inadequacy consideration cannot be quantified.
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs R. Rangaswamy Naidu on 11 March, 1996

12. In the general sense the expression "transfer of property" connotes the passing of rights in property from one person to another. In one case, there may be a passing of the entire bundle of rights from the transferor to the transferee. In another case, the transfer may consist of one of the estates only out of all the estates comprising the totality of rights in the property. In a third case, there will be a reduction of the exclusive interest in the totality of rights of the original owner into a joint or shared interest with other persons. An exclusive interest in property is a larger interest than a share in that property. To the extent to which the exclusive interest is reduced to a shared interest, there is a transfer of interest. (See Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT .
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next