9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o two questions of law are framed, at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the parties submit that only the first question would arise for consideration of this court. Therefore, we are required to answer the following question in this appeal: "(1) Whether the authorities below were justified in holding that the parting of part of the profit by the assessee to M/s. Mysore Amalgamated Coffee Estates P. Ltd. amounts to a colourable device adopted by the assessee to avoid tax?" 3. The assessee is an individual. He is carrying on the business under the name and style of M/s. Amalgamated Beans Trading Company. For the assessment year 1994-95, he filed the return of income. The same was processed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Amalgamated Coffee Estates P. Ltd. to commence under the name and style of M/s. Amalgamated Bean Trading Company and by vir tue of the memorandum of understanding, 45 per cent. of the profit was transferred to the accounts of M/s. Mysore Amalgamated Coffee Estates P. Ltd. and further held that the tax liability payable by an individual is lesser than the tax liability payable by a private limited company and held that the transaction cannot be treated as a colourable or sham transaction and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Being aggrieved by the said two orders, the present appeal is filed. 5. Mr. Seshachala, reiterating the grounds urged by the Revenue before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal made an attempt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the transaction as sham transaction. He further contends that the Revenue should not have accepted the return filed by M/s. Mysore Amalgamate Coffee Estates P. Ltd., wherein they have paid excess tax than the tax payable by an individual. In the circumstances, he requests the court to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, if the Revenue on the facts has proved that the transaction between the assessee and M/s. Mysore Amalgamated Coffee Estates P. Ltd. as a colourable transaction, then only we can interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. If on the facts, the Revenue has failed to prove the alleged sham transaction, we cannot interfere with the concurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
