WHETHER INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE SAME FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(26)?

Respected Members

?

Get ready to embark on an exciting journey of learning with our latest case law video! Click on link and experience the brilliance of knowledge like never before. Don't miss out on this opportunity to expand your horizons!

?

YouTube video link for Hindi video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVREpl7qYQ

?

YouTube video link for English video:?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDFOB2V2kiw

?

YouTube shorts video link:?https://www.youtube.com/shorts/B89UyEq7ayU

?

Short note of today's case law for quick reference:

?

[2024] 111 ITR (Trib) 502 (ITAT[Gau])

[BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL—GUWAHATI — LARGER BENCH]

?

1. HOTEL CENTRE POINT

2. RI-KYNJAI SERENITY BY THE LAKE, SHILLONG

v.

INCOME-TAX OFFICER

?

1. The assessee ran a hotel business. It consists of two partners, who were brothers.

?

2. Another assessee firm consisted of two partners, husband and wife.

?

3. They belonged to the Khasi tribe which was listed as a Scheduled tribe in the state of Meghalaya and was covered under clause 25 of article 366 of the Constitution of India.

?

4. They were residents of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District which area was specified under the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India.

?

5. The assessees claimed that since the firms in themselves were not separate juridical persons and were only a collective or compendious name for all of the partners having no independent existence without them, and since the partners of the assessee firms were entitled to exemption under section 10(26) of the Act, the same exemption was available to the firms formed by such partners.

?

6. The A.O. did not agree holding that the firm was a separate legal entity chargeable to Income tax and that the exemption under section 10(26) of the Act available to individual members of the recognized scheduled tribes was not available to a firm which was a separate entity under the Act.

?

7. The CIT(A) upheld the order confirmed by ITAT.

?

8. High Court referred the matter to larger bench of ITAT which again decided against the assessee.