1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds revenue in plant & machinery transfer case under Income-tax Act</h1> The High Court of Karnataka ruled in favor of the revenue in a case concerning the withdrawal of development rebate allowed in the assessment for the year ... Withdrawal Of Development Rebate Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 155(5)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the withdrawal of development rebate allowed in the assessment for the year 1965-66 due to transfer of plant and machinery by the assessee.Summary:The High Court of Karnataka was requested to give its opinion on the withdrawal of development rebate allowed in the assessment for the year 1965-66 under section 155(5)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a firm, had claimed development rebate for plant and machinery used in its business, which was later transferred to some partners. The Income-tax Officer rectified the assessment order under section 155(5) due to the transfer, leading to the dispute. The Tribunal upheld the decision, prompting the reference to the High Court.The contention of the assessee was that the transfer of assets to some partners did not constitute a legal transfer under the law, as it was merely an adjustment of partnership capital. However, the income-tax authorities argued that the transfer attracted the provisions of section 34(3)(b) read with section 155(5) of the Act. The Court referred to the Partnership Act and the concept of partnership assets, emphasizing that partners do not have exclusive interests in firm assets unless transferred by all partners, constituting a legal transfer.The Court distinguished a previous Supreme Court decision where assets were distributed upon firm dissolution, unlike the ongoing business of the assessee-firm. It concluded that the transfer of assets to some partners did amount to a legal transfer, upholding the decision of the income-tax authorities. Therefore, the question was answered in the affirmative in favor of the revenue, with costs to be paid by the assessee to the income-tax department.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
