9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the development rebate was allowed in the respective assessment years were transferred to Messrs. Ralson Cycles Pvt. Ltd. by the assessee. The facts on the basis of which this was done have been recorded by the AAC in his impugned is as under: "Upto 31st March,1974 the appellant firm was constituted by the following partners whose respective shares are mentioned against each of them : 1. Smt. Krishna Rani 37 1/2 per cent 2. Smt.Prem Kumari 37 1/2 per cent 3. Sh.Satish Chander 25 per cent The partnership was reconstituted with effect from 1st April, 1974 as under: 1. Smt.Krishna Rani 26.25 per cent 2. Smt. Prem Kumari 26.25 per cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liabilities of the appellant firm on its dissolution according to the terms and conditions of the relevant dissolution deed, no sale or transfer was involved within the meaning of s. 34(3)(b) of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, the withdrawal of the development rebate by the ITO under s. 154/155 of the IT Act in all these assessment years was not justified. The appeals for all these years are, therefore, allowed. The ITO is directed to give effect to this order and give relief to the appellant in all these years" 3. This issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76 in ITA No.139 (ASR/1980 dt. 15th Oct., 1981.The Tribunal gave its judgment as under: "14. We have carefully consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered firm. Not only this, the assessment of the firm as well as of the company has been finalised and there is no grievances with regard to any other aspect of the matter except depreciation and development rebate. Therefore, it is clear that this contention is untenable. In our opinion, it is a case of clear succession to the business of the firm by the company and the provision of s. 33(4) are clearly applicable. In such a case development rebate has to be allowed to the firm. Such being the case before us, we see no justification for refusing depreciation and development rebate to the assessee firm. We direct that depreciation and development rebate be allowed subject to fulfilment of other requirements of law." 4. Before us in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
