9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be carried forward for being adjusted against the future profits of the firm ? " The matter arises out of the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1979-80, for which the previous year ended on March 31, 1979. The respondent-assessee is a partnership firm originally constituted under an instrument of partnership executed on February 17, 1978 as "Kerala Enterprises". The name was changed by an agreement executed on March 1, 1978 as "Pioneer Enterprises", the respondent herein. The firm was given registration for the assessment year 1979-80. The Income-tax Officer, while completing the assessment, allocated the unabsorbed depreciation among the partners of the assessee-firm. On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items) has to be approtioned among the partners. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim that the unabsorbed depreciation has also to be carried forward. He stated that the provisions relating to carry forward of investment allowance or depreciation are entirely different. Section 32(2) of the Income-tax Act authorises carry forward of depreciation in the hands of the partners where full allowance is not possible in any year. In short, the question was whether unabsorbed depreciation of the assessee in the year in question is to be allocated among the partners or not. It cannot be disputed that in the case of a registered firm, the net loss including depreciation allowance, if any, is allocated to the partners who alone were entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [1983] 144 ITR 613 (Guj), Sankaranarayana Construction Co. v. CIT [1984] 145 ITR 467 (Kar), CIT v. Garden Silk Weaving Factory [1975] 101, ITR 658 (Guj), CIT v. Ram Swarup Gupta [1973] 92 ITR 495 (Delhi) and Raj Narain Agarwala v. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 1 (Delhi). Even though the aforesaid decisions have been cited before us, the question whether the unabsorbed depreciation of the "previous year" could be carried forward and set off against the profits of "the subsequent year" in, the case of a registered firm does not arise for consideration in this case. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the unabsorbed depreciation of a registered firm of "the current year" is to be allocated among the partners or not. There i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
