9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of ₹ 23,049 is an allowable deduction under section 10(2) of the Act? The assessee who was carrying on business originally as a proprietary concern took a working partner, Shantilal Navalchand, on and from the 1st April, 1949, the share of the latter being 8/17. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and on further appeal by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence this reference. The Tribunal has stated: These debts which are now claimed to have become bad are those of the business carried on previously by the firm and, therefore, the deduction could be claimed only by that entity and, with the dissolution of that entity before the previous year, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of its conclusion, namely, that where the assessee took over the outstandings and started as it were his sole business, they became the assessee's capital and they lost the identity as debts due to the firm. Mr. Ranganathan, who appears for the department, supported this view and referred to a recent decision of this Bench in R. C. No. 95 of 1957 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Appu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-trade as owners by virtue of the bequest, there was no cost value to them and that they could, therefore, adopt the market value of the goods as the basis of valuation of stock-in-trade. We cannot see how the principles of that decision can at all apply to the present case where the assessee himself was a partner in the firm and continued the business, after the retirement of the other partner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
