Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S S B Pannalkar & Co on 2 November, 2010

O.P. Associates,Bareilly vs Pcit, Bareilly on 26 March, 2025

The Ld. AR further submitted that the cases of CIT Vs. Rangila Ram and others reported in 254 ITR 230 and the case of Chamundi Winery and Distillery (supra) that had been cited by the Ld. PCIT were distinguishable from the case of the assessee and in turn he drew reference to the case of CIT Vs. SB ITA No. 64/LKW/2022 Page 11 of 25 Pannalkar and Co reported in 344 ITR 232 (Kar) to point out that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had held that if a partnership firm chooses to obtain a licence in the name of one of its partner that would be a partnership asset. Regarding vouchers for liquor, the Ld. AR pointed out that the details of sale have been furnished before the AO along with audited accounts and in the line of business of liquor trade, sales bills were not issued and even the customers do not give their names and address.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sri. Chakravarthy Enterprises , ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 July, 2013

In this view of the matter, the action of the learned CIT(Appeals) in placing reliance on and following the aforesaid decision in the case of M/s. S.B. Pannalkar & Co. (supra) is in order and we have no hesitation in upholding the decision of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue. We, therefore, dismiss ground No.4 raised by revenue. 5.3.3 It is not in dispute that the assessee has been assessed in the status of a firm for several years. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of section 184 of the Act, the assessee shall be assessed in the same capacity, unless there is a change in the constitution of the firm. The Assessing Officer in the order of assessment has observed that there has been a change in the partnership deed of the firm in the period under 7 ITA No. 1051/Bang/12 consideration. This observation of the Assessing Officer was disputed by the assessee before us. It was submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that there was neither a change in the constitution of the firm nor in the shares of the partners and therefore the assessee is liable to be assessed as a firm only in the period under consideration. It was also submitted by the learned Authorised Representative that there has been no defaults as mentioned in section 144 of the Act for the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 184(5) of the Act. In the above factual view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to invoke the provisions of section 184 of the Act to disallow the remuneration and interest paid to the partners by the assessee firm.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1