9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four assessment years, namely, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. It is obvious that the first two of these four years will be governed by the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and the later two years by the I.T. Act, 1961. It is unnecessary to give a detailed order inasmuch as the Tribunal, it appears to us, has found in favour of the assessee on a limited footing, which footing is not in accordance with the law as declared by this High Court. The question being considered was, was the benefit available to the assessee under s. 15C of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for the first two years, and under s. 84 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the later two years. The new industrial undertaking in respect of which the benefit of these sections was claimed h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, because, in its view, the assessee, even if it was a sub-lessee, could not be denied the benefit of s. 15C of the Act of 1922 or s. 84 of the Act of 1961, since a lease or a sub-lease in the view of the Tribunal did not constitute transfer. It is pointed out by Mr. Joshi that in Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 91 ITR 566 (Bom), the word " transfer " occurring in these two sections has been understood in a larger sense as including within its ambit all ordinary modes of transfer, namely, sale, mortgage, lease, gift and exchange. Thus, the legal basis of the decision of the Tribunal runs counter to the law as laid down by the Bombay High Court in Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd.'s case [1973] 91 ITR 566. Mr. Vyas, on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lanation if it is entitled thereto. For the two earlier years also, similar considerations have been applied by the court, although there is no Explanation nor the figure of 20% to be borne in mind. All these aspects have not been determined by the Tribunal in its order from which the reference arises, and all these aspects will be required to be gone into. The question referred to us is a very general question to which cannot be given a very simple answer. We answer it as follows: The Tribunal was, it appears to us, in error in taking the view that it took, namely, that the utilisation of the building belonging to the Pereiras by the assessee in its new industrial undertaking made no difference to the availability of the benefit under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
