9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that CIT, was right in holding that the appellant was not the owner of the property allotted to it in the dissolution of the partnership firm?" - Held that the reasoning given by the Tribunal for non-suiting the appellant for claiming depreciation on the ground that on dissolution of partnership, the property allotted to the share of the assessee has not been registered, is not in accordance with law, as explained by the Supreme Court and thus, the Tribunal committed an error of law. In the light of the reasoning stated by us, all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 12-12-2005 - Judge(s) : K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN., P. P. S. JANARTHANA RAJA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ators. The appellant entered into a partnership agreement with Madras Radiators and Pressing Pvt. Ltd., another company, and two other individuals, namely, A.P. Madhavan and P. Sharada, with effect from April 1, 1975. Under the said agreement, the individuals Madhavan and Sharada brought into the firm the property situated at Sanganur village consisting of factory buildings and agricultural land owned by them, whereas the two companies made their contribution in cash. The firm was so formed in the name of Universal Real Estate Agency with effect from April 1, 1975, and the same was subsequently dissolved with effect from March 30, 1976. On the said dissolution, the properties in Mettupalayam Road, Sanganur village, Coimbatore, belonging t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that on dissolution of the partnership firm under section 48 of the Partnership Act, 1932, the assets of the firm, including any sums contributed by the partners to make up deficiencies of capital shall be first applied in paying the debts of the firm to third parties and then paying to each partner rateably what is due to them from the firm for advances as distinguished from the capital and then paying to each partner rateably what is due to him on account of capital and then the residue, if any, shall be divided among the partners in the proportion in which they were entitled to share profits. As such, there is no necessity for any formal document of registration of the properties and further, there is no requirement under the law to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion over the property, as would enable others, being excluded therefrom and having the right to use and occupy the property and/or to enjoy its usufruct in his own right would be the owner of the building though a formal deed of title may not have been executed and registered as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act, etc. It is worthwhile to mention here the other decision reported in S.V. Chandra Pandian v. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar [1995] 212 ITR 592 (SC), in which for dissolution, the matter was referred to arbitration and on the basis of the award, the parties have received their respective properties. The question arose in that case was whether the non-registration of the award would disentitle the assessee th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
