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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

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

292B of Act cannot be made. 3. That the ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that under the law of partnership a firm has no legal existence apart from partner and it is merely a compendious name to describe its partner. If respondent want to assess the income of non existing partnership firm, then the firm must be fully

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

292B of the Act. We accordingly find no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismiss this technical ground raised by the Assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 4 relates to challenging jurisdiction and passing of Assessment Order on the ground of invalid approval u/s 153D