9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw to this court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment should have been completed in the status of a registered firm and in directing to grant registration to the firm, without recording a finding as to whether the income for the period belonged to an association of persons or the firm ?" The statement of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e between the co-owners and the cinema remained closed for some time during the accounting year. On December 15, 1979, seven partners of the firm had forcibly taken possession of the cinema building and started running the same. According to the Income-tax Officer, the newly constituted firm was only a paper transaction and the business of the cinema was actually run by the co-owners jointly. He, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gly, the Tribunal, vide its order dated September 23, 1985, allowed the assessee's appeal with the direction that registration be granted to the assessee. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat on behalf of the applicant, the Commissioner of Income-tax. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee-respondent. The order of the learned Tribunal shows that the new partnership firm was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant year, the business of the cinema was run by the partnership firm. Since the assessment had been made on the assessee (partnership firm) as a protective measure in view of the fact that it had filed the return, the Tribunal has rightly held that a protective registration could also be granted to the assessee which could later be cancelled under section 186 of the Act. In our opinion, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
