9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound No. 1 was withdrawn with the permission of the Court because the ITO has himself given necessary relief to the assessee on the issue involved in this ground. Therefore, this ground goes out of consideration. 3. The only other ground that survived for consideration is regarding the addition of Rs. 10,000 made to the total income of the assessee firm on account of low withdrawals by its partn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers of the authorities below: (i) MMAK Mohideen Thamby & Co. vs. CIT (1959) 36 ITR 481 (AP) (ii) Harwarmal Onkarmal vs. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 779 (Pat) (iii) CIT vs. Kapur Brothers (1979) 10 CTR (All) 280 : (1979) 118 ITR 741 (All) & (iv) Banta Sinch Kartar Singh vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 239 (P&H) It was contended that the agreement was clear and understandable to the assessee that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITD 706 (Chd), the Division Bench of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench held that though the firm is not generally anything but a compendious name for its partners, yet for purposes of the Act i.e., the IT Act, 1961, the firm has a separate entity from its partners. The income of the partners cannot be treated as that of the firm unless the statute provides for it. 6. It is thus clear that for low w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh, it was regarding the quantum of penalty which was fixed within the statutory limits but on agreement with the assessee. Therefore, that the case too was distinct on facts. Since in this case the addition is in the hands of the entity different from the entity regarding which the withdrawals were considered low, it is not justified. It is deleted.
7. Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
