Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)Golkonda Aluminium Extrusions Limited ... vs Acit, Circle-15(1), Hyd, Hyderabad on 6 April, 2018
7.8 In the appellate proceedings the assessee has reiterated that there is
no distribution of assets and as a result the provisions of Section 45(4) of the
ITA No.1994/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 6
M/s Indian Extrusions Vs. ACIT-24(3)
Act are not applicable. The assessee has also cited certain ease Jaws to
suggest that during the subsistence of partnership, the partners do not have
any right over the property of the firm and the ownership doesn't change
with the change in Constitution of the firm. (This is not applicable to the
facts of the case at present because these were judgments relating to the
period prior to the introduction of present section 45(4) of the Act and
related to other statutes besides Income Tax). The assessee also submitted
that even if the provisions of section 45(4) of the Act are sought to be
applied, the same may be applied only to the extent of the share of the
retiring partner i.e. M/s Amarnath H. Singh (HUF) as on the date of the
retirement.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.N. Naik Associates And Anr. And ... on 23 July, 2003
8.4 The above decision of the Karnataka High Court, with due respect, is
different from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the A. N. Naik
Associates case (supra). The Karnataka High Court laid stress on the point
that the capital asset of the firm should be transferred in favour of a partner,
resulting in firm ceasing to have any interest in the capital asset transferred
and the partners should acquire exclusive interest in the capital asset.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Gurunath Talkies on 7 July, 2009
Of course, the CIT(A) notes that reference to the Full
Bench was made by the Division Bench since there was a conflict between
the decisions in case of Gurunath Talkies (supra) and CIT v. Mango lore
Ganesh Beedi Works (265ITR 658 (Kar).
The Commr Of Income Tax vs M/S Dynamic Enterprise on 16 September, 2013
Moreover, we
find that the said decision has been overruled by the subsequent Full Bench
judgement of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT v. Dynamic
Enterprises (supra).
THE FINANCE ACT, 2021
Mrs. Arathi Shenoy & Ors. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 July, 2000
29. The CIT(A) also relied on the decision of the Special bench of the
Tribunal in case of Mrs. Arathi Shenoy v. Jt. CIT (supra). In this regard, it is
noted that the issue before the Special Bench was of taxability in the hands
of partner who was surrendering her rights and interest in the firm on
retirement. In the instant case, the issue is invoking of section 45(4) of the
Act in the hands of firm and, hence the fact situation is completely different
from the case before the Special Bench.
Ratan Plastic Industries, Mumbai vs Acit 24(3), Mumbai on 14 November, 2017
We have deliberated at length on the issue under consideration, and
find, that the issue involved in the case before us is squarely covered
by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the „sister
concern‟ of the assessee, viz. M/s Amardeo Plastic Industries (supra).
Ito 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs Fine Developers, Mumbai on 28 February, 2018
(Underlined for emphasis by us)
The second decision relied upon is ITO v. Fine Developers 55 SOT 122
(Mum), whose relevant portion reads as under:
M. Janardhana Rao vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 28 January, 2005
It is evident from the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Janardhana Rao v. Jt.
CIT (supra) that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court has been set aside
since no substantial question of law was formulated at time of admission of
appeal by the Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically
noted that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the case.