Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS.2899/LB, 2900/LB, 2901/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 21ST JUNE, 2003. versus I.T.AS. NOS.2899/LB, 2900/LB, 2901/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 21ST JUNE, 2003.

In order to amend the section 66 deputy commissioner's order, the Inspector Additional Commissioner's inspection powers were canceled by the Inspector Additional Commissioner on the ground that the real brothers were running the business as an association but to avoid proper taxation cases. for the. The findings were being filed separately as Socie gas was being used for its business and had to pay monthly bills collectively. They were doing business in the same premises, they were jointly paying electricity and telephone bills, and the employees were being paid salaries jointly. The fact is that the fact that these two men were trading themselves on two separate names was indicative of independence. This was not the case. The department is that both of them were partners in each other's business, but that was that they were sharing building and expenses. Two separate individuals who were not connected to each other could do business separately in one place by the distribution of electricity, telephone and employees. In the position of the members, the members were jointly sharing in the profit and loss of the business. In the absence of any such evidence and concluding that the two persons are doing business as an association. Individuals cannot be assisted by an appellate tribunal, unless otherwise filed in the individual status, a person cannot be converted into an association. There is no provision of the law in the income tax under which a person can be held in one place. Association status for the business person top advocate from Dunyapur lawyer