TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de at the instance of the Revenue to answer the following questions of law, viz. : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was Tight in law in holding that there were two separate firms, one from the beginning of the previous year up to July 25, 1972, and the other from July 26, 1972, to the end of the previous year ? 2. Whether, on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted to the benefits of the partnership. The assessee-firm filed two separate returns relating to the two different periods pertaining to the old and the new firm. The Income-tax Officer framed a single assessment for the entire period. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the assessee's, appeal and affirmed the view taken by the Income-tax Officer. The further appeal of the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irm and constitution of a new firm at a later date, in which one of the earlier partners has been included. On these facts, the Tribunal was justified in the view which was taken. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee as under: "The Tribunal was justified in holding that there were two firms so that two separate assessments were required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
