Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on dissolution of a partnership firm, the return of theatres brought into the firm by the partners constituted a sale by the firm to the partners so as to attract the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis: Under the Partnership Act, 1932, property brought into the firm becomes partnership property, and on dissolution the partners are entitled to have the firm's property applied in discharge of liabilities and the surplus distributed according to their rights. The distribution of surplus under sections 46 and 48 of the Partnership Act, 1932 is only a mode of adjustment of the partners' rights in the assets of the dissolved firm and does not amount to a transfer of those assets. The word "sale" in section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 bears its ordinary meaning of a transfer of property for a price, and the return of the theatres in settlement of accounts on dissolution was neither a transfer nor a sale for a price.
Conclusion: The return of the theatres on dissolution was not a sale within the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, and the amount could not be included in the assessee's income.
Ratio Decidendi: Adjustment of partners' rights on dissolution of a firm and distribution of partnership assets in settlement of accounts do not constitute a sale unless there is a transfer of property for a price.