Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1978 (10) TMI 32

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e assessment years under consideration are 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relevant accounting years being Samvat Years 2023 and 2024. The assessee is a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in diesel oil engines, machinery spare parts, equipment, etc. The firm was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Bharat Petroleums with its head office at Rajkot and branches at Bhavnagar, Ahmedabad, Anand, Mehsana and Bhuj. The partnership was constituted under a deed of partnership dated November 2, 1964. There were six partners of the firm. By a deed dated June 27, 1968, the business of the partnership at Bhuj branch was transferred to a new independent firm styled Bharat Petroleums, Bhuj. In that new firm at Bhuj, along with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the assessee claimed development rebate on plant and machineries installed at Mehsana and Bhuj. Similarly, in Samvat Year 2024, that being the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1969-70, the assessee had claimed development rebate on the plant and machinery installed at Rajkot and Ahmedabad. The ITO declined to grant development rebate claimed by the assessee on its plants and machineries on the ground that the machineries on which the development rebate was claimed had been sold to the newly constituted partnership firms which was within a period of eight years and, therefore, the conditions laid down in s. 34 of the I.T. Act were not fulfilled for claiming development rebate. Appeals by the assessee before the AAC failed as th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e pointed out that, against the decision of the Tribunal in Laxmi Weaving Factory's case, there was a reference to this High Court, being Income Tax References Nos. 1 and 2 of 1973 and, by our decision dated October 24, 1974, the reference was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and the view taken by the Tribunal in Laxmi Weaving Factory's case was not accepted by this High Court. In that case, it was held that when on the distribution of the assets of a partnership, surplus assets are distributed amongst the partners, there is no utilisation in the voluntary sense, since utilisation means converting to use or turning to account. It was further held that development rebate allowed to the partnership cannot be withdrawn .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd the undertaking or the business of the undertaking in respect of which the development rebate has been allowed. The assessee may be the same but he may have different undertakings; for example, the assessee may be running an ice factory and a textile factory and in respect of the ice factory machinery, he may have been allowed development rebate. He may also have been allowed development rebate in respect of the machinery installed for his textile factory. But the business of each of these two undertakings is distinct and separate and, therefore, the development rebate allowed in respect of the ice factory machinery cannot be permitted to be used for the other undertaking of the assessee, namely, the textile factory. The illustration cle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the development rebate already granted for the assessment years under consideration. However, since there was no voluntary utilisation but there was non-utilisation of the development rebate reserve in the instant case because non-utilisation, if any, had taken place by virtue of the rearrangement of the business, it cannot be said that cl. (c) of s. 155(5) could be invoked. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was in error in law in holding that the provisions of s. 155(5) were attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates