EN THE mm-t COURT OF KARNATAKA A"? BANGALORE'-....'_E~~T.
DATED THES THE 6*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2916 "'
PRESENT
THEHONBLEMR.Nfi§UCE,NgKfiMfiE"EnEEVT"E
AND.
THErmnwsaerwR.JusT3CEfLsfKEMPAmfiAg-,mI
ITA NO.31O éOe:--_
BETWEEN:
1.
_ Bangxa.'%_§0r"e;.
The Commissionerof Inc0m--e.--TVax--,A ' '
Centratcircie, _ _ _ _. ~
cTLBundmg,_f, 5", _*.1_ _'-T """
Queens Road; 9' "
Bangalore.
The Depety .C--om:T's*a;3.si'or"1er._<
Central C§'i~'.C§€<.'I, " -
C.R.Bua'idEng=,T
Queens_R0ad}"~» "
V" Appeliants
{By for E'/E.V. Seshachala, Advocate)
=Tj»{ey Sn M.V.}avaH,Adv.)
TE AND€.T*
Late Sr}. 'P.a}a'gopéEa Rae,
LR. K.R,jPradeep Kumar,
4_"No':4,/2_e__
._ ".._'V"r»'!.ud3iaV;);:2'za_. Street,
»],_apddavana
-.T"B__ah'gal}0re-S60 OG4.
Respondent
x/
This ETA is fiied under Section 260–A of LT. Act,f:i961
praying to formulate the substantiai questions of
therein and to aiiow the appeai and set aside the
by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bc:iI’]QaiOF€””B’€éif’iCi’i”:i:f}’-:1-4″‘
i\Eo.809/Bang/2005 dated 31.10.2006 cozjifirnriiéng ‘t«he’1
Appeilant Commissioner and confirm
Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), BanQ_a’iQre. ‘
This ETA is coming up’ for hec3I”‘i’i’i’i:.jV,_:’Oii’I_,A. otnthisyé day, N
KUMAR 3., delivered the foiio”wing. _ ;
2. This:’:,appeai”g;iert_,a’i’ns”‘tot’-the -‘assessment year 1997-98.
The question involved’in””t,hi»s:i”a.ooeai is when partners retire,
when the ycconisiderationiiisVpaid to them representing it as a share
inutheii ass’ets_.s’o,f tiiev partnership firm, whether it amounts to
capitai”a}_a’i’ns. and’_~vi.i.ab.l;’e”for tax ?
In thefcase of very same assessee for the assessment
by a considered order, this Court on 16.8.2010 in
‘ii-jra”ixiogaoa/2oo7 and connected matters has held that the
V’-c:Tr.,i_i4_34’4i:..’snal is justified in hoiding that it was an asset of the
A/.