9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Registration requirement for partnership deed with immovable property as capital. 2. Entitlement to depreciation on building contributed as capital. 3. Validity of declaration under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975. 4. Inclusion of voluntarily disclosed income in total income. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved whether a partnership deed with immovable property as capital required registration. The court held that registration was not necessary as per the law. The property contributed by partners, even if immovable, did not require any document, registered or otherwise, for transferring it to the partnership. The court relied on previous decisions and concluded that the partnership was entitled to depreciation on the building contributed as capital. Issue 2: The question of entitlement to depreciation on the building contributed as capital was addressed. The court upheld the right of the assessee to claim depreciation on the building, emphasizing that all property brought into the common stock by partners as their contribution to the business is considered partnership property, regardless of registration status. Issue 3: The validity of a declaration made under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 was disputed. The court analyzed the search proceedings and the nature of the declaration. It was found that the declaration made by the assessee under section 3 of the Ordinance was not valid due to the search conducted at the premises of a limited company, not the assessee-firm. The court clarified that the provisions of section 8(1) of the Ordinance applied only to declarations made under section 3, not section 14. Issue 4: The inclusion of voluntarily disclosed income in the total income was contested. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the declaration made under section 3 was not legally valid, and thus, the provisions of section 8(1) of the Ordinance did not apply. Consequently, the voluntarily disclosed income of the assessee was to be included in the total income. In conclusion, the court addressed various legal aspects related to partnership deeds, depreciation claims, and the validity of declarations under the Ordinance. The judgment favored the Revenue on the issues concerning the declaration of income under the Ordinance, emphasizing the specific provisions applicable to such declarations.
|
