9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relating to the asst. yr. 1978-79, under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, for the opinion of this Court : "Whether, in the case of a partner of a firm, which had become defunct, the Tribunal is correct in law in coming to the conclusion that the unabsorbed depreciation relating to the defunct firm which had closed its business in the asst. yr. 1978-79 must be carried forward and set off against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee preferred an appeal before the AAC and contended that the assessees are partners in a number of firms, and the business of all these firms forms but one business and so long as one of these businesses exists, the carried forward loss of a defunct firm should be allowed to be set off against other business income of all the partners. 3. The AAC while rejecting the assessees' claim for carry f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of CIT vs. Virmani Industries (P) Ltd. (1995) 129 CTR (SC) 189 : (1995) 216 ITR 607 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court while considering the set off of unabsorbed depreciation under s. 32(2) of the Act held as under : "The next question is whether for availing of the benefit of s. 32(2), is it necessary that the business carried on in 'the following previous year' should be the same bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any words to that effect, it must be held that for availing of the benefit of s. 32(2), it is not necessary that the business carried on in the following year is the same business as was carried on in the previous year." 5. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the set off of the carried forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
