KOTHARI FEEDS LLP,PUNE vs. C 1 RANGE 56 CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.326/PUN/2025
िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2020-21
Kothari Feeds LLP,
Summet
Plaza,
E-30/31,
Gultekdi,
Market
Yard,
Pune- 411037. PAN : AATFK1257C
Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru.
Appellant
Respondent
आदेश / ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM:
This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Udaipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated
11.12.2024 which is arising out of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2020-21 framed on 25.11.2021 by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru.
Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak
Revenue by : Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Date of hearing
: 18.06.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.06.2025
2
2. The only issue raised in this appeal is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act for the share of profit received from partnership firm, M/s. Kothari Autolines.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Limited
Liability Partnership (LLP) and is a partner in another partnership firm M/s. Kothari Autolines and in the return of income filed on 28.11.2020 for A.Y. 2020-21 exempt income at Rs.2,42,710/- claimed u/s 10(2A) of the Act. The CPC denied the said exemption against which the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee raised two folds arguments firstly, the adjustments made by the CPC is not in accordance with section 143(1) of the Act and secondly, the assessee LLP is eligible for exemption u/s 10(2A) of the Act being partner in another partnership firm. Further Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench, Bangalore in the case of Mulberry
Textiles LLP vs. ITO [2023] 147 taxmann.com 267. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of both the lower authorities.
3
6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. The grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the CPC by not allowing the exemption u/s 10(2A) for the share of profit of Rs.2,42,710/- received from the partnership firm, M/s. Kothari Autolines. Ld. CIT(A) has denied the exemption stating that a LLP cannot become a partner in partnership firm. I however notice that assessee a LLP has been allowed to become a partner in a partnership firm by the