9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October 1, 1968, to September 30, 1969, accrued on September 30, 1969 and was, accordingly, assessable in its entirety in the hands of the assessee-company ?" The relevant facts in brief are that there was a company known as "Belapur Company Limited". There was another company by the name "Gangapur Sugar Mills Limited". By an order of our court dated July 10, 1970, Belapur Company Limited was amalgamated with Gangapur Sugar Mills Limited with effect from June 1, 1969. However, the order of amalgamation was not produced before the departmental authorities or the Tribunal and it does not find a place in the annexure to the statement of the case. Accordingly, we have to proceed on the basis of the facts stated by the Tribunal. It appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the assessee's claim that the profits or losses for the entire period of the previous year, i.e., from October 1, 1968, to September 30, 1969, in respect of Belapur unit accrued or arose on September 30, 1969. The Tribunal so held on the facts which do not appear to be in dispute, namely, that the business carried on by Belapur unit was taken over as a running concern. The books of account of that unit were not closed nor were profits and/or losses computed on May 31, 1969. According to Dr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the Department, when the ownership of the business changed, it was incumbent upon the assessee to have computed its profits or losses in respect of Belapur unit only for the period for which it owned that u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no concern as to whether a person is a partner in his own right or is representing his family, whereas in the case of different owners, as in the present case, the position is very much different. Mr. Damodar, learned counsel for the assessee, strongly relied on the order of the Tribunal. He laid great emphasis on the observations of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ashokbhai Chimanbhai [1965] 56 ITR 42 to the effect (headnote) : "'Profits' do not accrue from day to day or even from month to month and have to be ascertained by a comparison of assets at two stated points. Unless the right to profits comes into existence there is no accrual of profits and the destination of profits must be determined by the title thereto on the day on which t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
