9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1985 is really only a consequential quantum appeal seeking for the status to be taken as that of a registered firm. 2. To put the facts briefly, in the present case the assessee is a firm which came into being under deed of partnership dt. 1st April, 1981. This deed was partially destroyed in a fire that occurred in the Auditor's officer on 9th July, 1983 and, therefore, a fresh instrument on st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails would show that S.S.N. Subbu has signed the partnership deed as an individual with a 5 per cent share and as an representing his H.U.F. with a 15 per cent share. So also S.S.N. Dhanasekar had signed the partnership deed as an individual with a 5 per cent and as representing his H.U.F. with a 15 per cent share. The ITO took the view that one and the same person could not be part in two capac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the present case was fully covered by the ratio of the judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in (1981) 129 ITR 97 (Guj) as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Raghavji Anandji and Co. (1975) 100 ITR 246 (Bom) 5. The ld. Departmental representative, on the other hand, pressed into service the two decisions on which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts the Patna case was rightly decided. Coming to the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in (1937) 5 ITR 182 (Cal) their Lordships of the Gujarat High Court stated that certain observations of Costello, J. in that case no doubt supported the stand of the Revenue but after such observations, there were decisions of the Privy Counsel and the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
