9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (1) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that no prejudice had been caused to the interest of the Revenue by the order of the Income-tax Officer, even though the Income-tax Officer had allowed depreciation on the entire plant and machinery at a uniform rate of 15 per cent.? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the views taken by the Tribunal that the capital gains that would arise on the transfer of the business by the old firm to the individual, Smt. P. S. Seethalakshmi, and again on the transfer of the proprietary business to the assessee-firm would be more than the increase in the revenue that might arise by the adoption of the written down value of the machinery as the cost of the same in the hands of the assessee-firm, would be relevant to deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of machinery was claimed on the sum of Rs. 2,71,138 which was the cost of machineries to the firm. It was, therefore, argued that the depreciation as claimed by the assessee and allowed by the Income-tax Officer was correct and hence the assessment order need not be set aside. The Commissioner, after considering all the facts of the case, set aside the assessment order made by the Income-tax Officer and directed him to make a fresh assessment having in view the change in the constitution of the firm, the addition alleged to have been made to the machinery account, the profits under section 41(2) in the hands of the earlier firm, etc. Thereupon, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal was not correct in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. We have also heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee, who supported the order passed by the Tribunal. According to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, inasmuch as there is no continuity of the old firm, it cannot be said that there is change in the constitution of the new firm. It was, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. The fact remains that there was a partnership firm in existence, in which Smt. P. S. Seethalakshmi, wife of the late P. Subramaniam, was the managing partner. That partnership firm came to an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
