KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

189(3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

189(3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

189(3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

189(3) of the Act. It is submitted that sub-section instead of supporting the respondent, supports the stand of the assessee. It is clearly provided that person to be held liable are the person who were partner at the time of dissolution. In present case, the firm against which the assessment was made was dissolved w.e.f. 02.10.2017. The father

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

189 were squared up after 31.03.2014 against supply of Assets & Equipments as per Ledger a/c enclosed again for ready reference. Total 8,85,08,618 Considering the facts of the case and above details, I find force in the appellant's claim. It may be noted that all these details were submitted by the appellant before the AO vide