9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assets of the partnership did not require registration ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation under section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in respect of the aforesaid Rambagh Palace ? " In pursuance of the aforesaid order of this court, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has sent a statement of the case. The facts in brief, as pointed out in the statement of the case, are that M/s. Amber Corporation, hereinafter referred to as " the assessee ", was a firm consisting of five partners, namely, the late H. H. Sawai Man Singhji of Jaipur and his four sons. The partnership was formed to carry on hotel busi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed depreciation. The Tribunal relied on a judgment of, this court in CIT v. Amber Corporation [1974] 95 ITR 178 and held that in the case of the assessee itself for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the High Court had already taken the view that the assessee was entitled to the depreciation in the facts and circumstances of the case. As regards the other question mentioned above as question No. 1, the High Court in the above case placed reliance on Firm Ram Sahay Mall Rameshwar Dayal v. Bishwanath Prasad, AIR 1963 Pat 221, and Sudhansu Kanta v. Manindra Nath, AIR 1965 Pat 144, but held that they need not decide this point finally as it was not referred to them, and it was even contrary to the facts which were mentioned in para. 3 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in CIT v. Amber Corporation [1974] 95 ITR 178 and the question is answered in the affirmative. Now remains question No. 1 for our determination. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the revenue, has contended that the transfer of the share by one of the partners in the firm consisted of an immovable property which under the Transfer of Property Act, being admittedly for a value more than Rs. 100, required registration. It is contended that in the absence of registration no such transfer could be given effect to, and the property known as Rambagh Palace cannot be considered to have been contributed towards the assets of the partnership in the absence of registration. It is, thus, contended that the question of depreciation on such property doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
