Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT

229 ITR 458Supreme Court of India1998#9976 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2020.

Judgments citing Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT

M/S. MEGHACHEM INDUSTRIES,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed…”

ITA 803/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.803/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 M/S.Meghachem Industries, D.C.I.T., Plot No.8, Phase-Ii, Circle-3(2), Vs. Ahmedabad Gidc, Vatva, Ahmedabad-382245. Pan: Aaifm1621R

For Appellant: Shri Sohan U.Mashruwala, A.R
Section 143Section 40

…cate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by and under different judgements including the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rasiklal & Co.Vs CIT reported in (1998 ) 229 ITR 458 (SC). It was further argued by the Learned Advocate that in the similar set of facts the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 1912/Ahd/2010 in the matter of M/s. P Gautam & Co. Versus JCIT, Ahmedabad, the salary to partner a Karta of HUF who is otherwise actively engaged in conducting the affairs of the business of the assessee firm has been allowed. A c…

M/S. SHREEJI CORPORATION,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE JCIT, GANDHINAGAR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 583/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271

…nding to the affairs of business- of the partnership firm as working partners. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in holding that there was no evidence that they were working partners. In view of the Supreme Court decision in the case ofRashiklal and Co. 229 ITR 458 it is the individual who is partner in the firm and it is immaterial as to in what capacity he is the partner. His obligation may be towards others, but vis a vis the firm he is the partner in his individual capacity. Even otherwise, as held in the case of Kshetra Mohan Sannyasi Charan Sadhukhan vs. CEPT 4a Hindu undivided family is included in t…

FOMRA & CO.,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-6(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1648/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anitha, JCITFor Respondent: 18.09.2019
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…while framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. This is no more res-integra that HUF cannot be partner in a partnership firm. Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co v. CIT reported in (1998)229 ITR 458(SC), wherein, it was elaborately explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court that HUF cannot be partner in the partnership firm. It is profitable at this stage to reproduce the aforesaid judgment in its entirety , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The following question of law was referred by the Tribunal to the Orissa High Court under Sect…

M/S. MANUBHAI NAROTTAMDAS & CO.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2543/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2543/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Manubhai Narottamdas & Co. Ito, Ward-5(2)(5) 201, Parishram Building Vs Ahmedabad. Mithakhali Six Roads Ahmedabad. Pan : Aacfm 5147 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak, Sr.DR
Section 40

…s in accordance with and within the limit prescribed u/s. 40(b), the disallowance of Rs.1,99,022/- made by the assessing officer is had in law and requires to be struck down. In support, the following judgments are relied upon:- i) Rasiklal and co, vs. CIT, 229 ITR 458(SC) ii) Commissioner Of Income fax vs Golden Touch, 263 ITR pg 261 iii) CTT v/s. Jugal Kishore & Sons 347 ITR pg. 0325 iv) ACIT vs Giriraj Mines, ITAT, Ahmedabad 'A' Bench, (2005) / SOT 279 (Ahd) v) Smruti Trading co. vs.ITO,(2001) 70 TTJ (Mum) U4 vi) Vanson Kids Stuff vs. ATIT, 79 TTJ (Del) 155 vii) ACIT Vs. Laxmi Sailaji Traders, (2005) I SOT 6…

M/S. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA (HUF),DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 234BSection 40Section 80C

…can be a partner through its Karta, how HUF cannot be a working partner through its Karta. Further the assessee HUF has been assessed for years as Partner in the Firm. 5.4 Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in Rashik lal & Co Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxmann 16 wherein the issue was whether section 40(b) will not be applicable where an individual person is partner in the firm as representative of the firma as claimed by the assessee. The said judgment is in context of allowability of interest/remuneration paid to partner as Karta of HUF wherein the apex courts held as below In this case before your ho…

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUASUB ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1354/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…t exist with the artificial persons alone. When this was put to the assessee, it replied that an individual could be a partner representing HUF, where he was a member and relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458. The AO was not impressed. Accordingly to him, by virtue of section 40(b) of the Act, only an individual could be a partner in a partnership firm and a entity like HUF could not be a partner. He, therefore, treated the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). Therefore, he disallowed the interest paid to the partners and the remunerations o…

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUASUB ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1352/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…t exist with the artificial persons alone. When this was put to the assessee, it replied that an individual could be a partner representing HUF, where he was a member and relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458. The AO was not impressed. Accordingly to him, by virtue of section 40(b) of the Act, only an individual could be a partner in a partnership firm and a entity like HUF could not be a partner. He, therefore, treated the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). Therefore, he disallowed the interest paid to the partners and the remunerations o…

ACIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUA SUB ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1351/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. Nos. 1351, 1352, 1353 & 1354/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Income M/S. Aqua Sub Engineering, Tax, Vs. Thudiyalur Post, Non Corporate Circle -4, Coimbatore – 641 034. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfa 8028P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Subramanian, FCA
Section 40

…t exist with the artificial persons alone. When this was put to the assessee, it replied that an individual could be a partner representing HUF, where he was a member and relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co vs CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458. The AO was not impressed. Accordingly to him, by virtue of section 40(b) of the Act, only an individual could be a partner in a partnership firm and a entity like HUF could not be a partner. He, therefore, treated the assessee as an Association of Persons (AOP). Therefore, he disallowed the interest paid to the partners and the remunerations o…

AQUASUB ENGINEERING,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 929/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.929/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S Aquasub Engineering, The Assistant Commissioner Of Post Box 5803, Tudiyalur Post, V. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 034. Circle Iii, Coimbatore. Pan : Aadfa 8028 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Subramaniam, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Vijayalakshmi, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.929/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Aquasub Engineering, The Assistant Commissioner of Post Box 5803, Tudiyalur Post, v. Income Tax, Coimbatore – 641 034. Circle III, Coimbatore. PAN : AADFA 8028 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Subramaniam, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Res…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUA SUB ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1959/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT
Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…rtificial persons alone. When this was put to the assessees, their reply was that an individual could be a partner representing HUF where he was a member. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458. However, the Assessing Officer was not impressed. According to him, by virtue of Section 40(b) of the Act, only an individual could be a partner in a partnership firm and an entity like HUF could not be a partner. He, therefore, treated the assessees as Association of Persons. Interest paid to the partners and remuneration to the working partn…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. AQUA PUMP INDUSTRIES, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 1958/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1958/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.111/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No. 1958/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sunder Rao, CIT
Section 185(1)(a)Section 40

…rtificial persons alone. When this was put to the assessees, their reply was that an individual could be a partner representing HUF where he was a member. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458. However, the Assessing Officer was not impressed. According to him, by virtue of Section 40(b) of the Act, only an individual could be a partner in a partnership firm and an entity like HUF could not be a partner. He, therefore, treated the assessees as Association of Persons. Interest paid to the partners and remuneration to the working partn…

Rashik Lal & Co. v. CIT (229 ITR 458) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax