TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te tests of a partnership firm constituted in accordance with law - against revenue. - ITA No.639 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2012 - S J Vazifdar and M S Sanklecha, JJ. For Appellants: Mr Abhay Ahuja Ms Suchitra Kamble For Respondents: Ms Aasifa Khan, Ms Aasifa Khan, S R Mody A J Patil JUDGEMENT Per: S J Vazifdar: 1. This is an appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal), dismissing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. The appellant invites the Court to consider the following questions of law : (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessee firm is a genuine firm a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MIDC was also defined in the agreement. Clause 9.4 provided for the termination of the agreement upon the completion of the contract if awarded to the consortium by MIDC. 4. MIDC awarded the contract to the consortium. MIDC, however, by a letter dated 5th July, 1997, expressly mentioned that the award was subject to the consortium being converted into a partnership firm as approved by MIDC's legal department. Accordingly, the respondent-firm was constituted as per the said partnership deed dated 23rd July, 1997. The respondent's partners were - the said Bhageeratha Engineering Limited, Ray Constructions Limited and the four individuals who were the partners of Ray Constructions. 5. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... form the contract and to divide the profits arising therefrom among themselves in accordance with the Consortium Agreement. The members of the consortium constituted the firm, not as a devise to evade or even avoid tax, but upon the insistence of the MIDC. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, the impugned order warrants no interference. No question of law, therefore, arises. 9. For the same reason, a substantial question of law does not arise in respect of the appellant's contention that the respondent is not a genuine firm. As rightly noted by the Tribunal, the respondent satisfies the requisite tests of a partnership firm constituted in accordance with law. As noted above, the firm was not constituted with any ulterior motive. It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
