TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (10) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... firm on 10th November, 1977. The firm M/s Navrattanmal Prakashchand had a branch under the name and style of M/s Board Dyeing Co., Pali. After the retirement of Shri Ratanlal, the firm was reconstituted w.e.f. 11th November, 1977 under the name and style of M/s Board Dyeing Co., Pali. The new firm consisted of 5 partners including two old partners. The ITO concluded that it was change in the constitution of the firm as contemplated u/s 187 (2) of the IT Act, and therefore, one assessment had to be made for both the periods i.e. upto the date of retirement of Shri Ratanlal and the period following his retirement. This was challenged before the CIT (A) on the ground that there was a new firm because a separate partnership deed was executed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the firm as reconstituted at the time of the assessment. 5. The ld. Departmental representative, on the other hand, has relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Dharampal and contended that one assessment has to be made for both the periods on the firm as reconstituted. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has not filed before us a copy of the partnership deed of the old firm to find out as to what were the terms and conditions thereof on the point of dissolution or continuation. He has filed a copy of the new partnership deed. This deed also refers to the fact that it was a case of change in the constitution of the firm. The relevant extract from th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....total income of the assessee firm as reconstituted and direct the ITO to make assessments for this income separately. 7. In the second ground it is stated that the entire additions made by the ITO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) were bad in law. At the time of hearing Shri Kothari, however, pressed only one addition, i.e. non-allowance of depreciation on machinery @ 15% as against 10% allowed by the authorities below. The assessee derives income from processing of cloth. For this purpose it requires printing tables. The assessee claimed depreciation @ 15% thereon as according to it corrosive chemicals were applied on the cloth alongwith colours and such corrosive elements come in contact with the printing table and, therefore, depreciatio....