2012 (7) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on the following substantial question of law :- "Whether the First Appellate Authority and Tribunal was correct in distinguishing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (254) ITR 230 - Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rangeelaram and others?" 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent assessee is a partnership firm doing wholesale liquor business. We are concerned with the as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Exercise License (General Conditions Rules) is apparent, the very partnership firm cannot be considered as a legally constituted partnership firm. Therefore, in view of the violation of the Rules especially Rule 17(b), where transfer of license is prohibited without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the respondent Assessee was not entitled for any allowance as claimed in the r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o partnership with others to deal with any liquor, it would amount to all other partners also dealing in liquor. This would be contrary to the basic principle and illegal, as without license other partners were not entitled to carry on the business of liquor. 5. In the present case, as the partnership deed is reconstituted subsequent to the amendment of Income-tax Act with effect from 1-4-1993 th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X