9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t assessment year is 1958-59, the corresponding previous year being S.Y. 2013, which ended on 22nd October, 1957. A partnership firm of the name of Esoofally Abdulhussein Expanded Metal Depot was carrying on business in zinc sheets and expanded metals. On the 1st of August, 1947, the firm despatched certain goods from Bombay to the Controller of Stores, N. W. Railway, Lahore, under an agreement existing between the parties. Shortly thereafter, followed the partition of India. At that time a sum of Rs. 17,617 was due to that firm on account of that consignment. After partition that firm could not recover its claim from the Controller of Stores, Lahore, who became an officer of the Government of Pakistan and, therefore, claimed that amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the assessee, has during the arguments of this reference before us stated that the assessee gives up its claim for deduction of that amount of Rs. 2,250 and that, therefore, this court need not answer the question as formulated in so far as it refers to that claim. The Tribunal has not up held the claim of the assessee for deduction of the said sum of Rs. 17,617 The reference has hence been made at the instance of the assessee and the question referred is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the assessee's claim to the sum of Rs. 19,867 (rupees nineteen thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven only) is admissible under section 10(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-tax Act ? " The sum of Rs. 19,867 mentioned the questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the business in the case before us is not in any manner broken or interrupted, but, on the other hand, the business as a whole has continued without any interruption. The ratio of the above judgment is, in our opinion, fully applicable to the case before us. No material distinction, or, as a matter of fact, no distinction, has been pointed out by Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue. Mr. Joshi contended that when the limited company, i.e., the assessee, was formed and it took over the business of the said firm, this debt in the hands of the assessee became its capital asset. An identical contention had been urged on behalf of the revenue in the said case of the Bombay Hing Supply Company and the judgment ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
