Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1979 (4) TMI 84

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3 the assessee firm sold its business to M/s. Polyene General Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, in March, 1973, comprising the partners of the assessee-firm as shareholders. For asst. year 1974 under appeal the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 80,450 which claim was rejected by the ITO as under- "In as much as the machineries etc. Were sold during the year, the assessee is not entitled to any depreciation as provided in Act. When this was pointed out to the representative he has stated that even though he is not eligible for the normal depreciation provided in the Act, the difference between the sale price and the written down value has to be allowed as balancing depreciation under s. 32(1)(iii) of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Supreme Court held that there was no question of allowing terminal allowance. This decision of the Supreme Court overrides that in Chittor Transport Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO. The definition of sale equalling exchange cited by the representative has been given under the accessibility of balancing charge under s. 41(2). No doubt the wordings in ss. 32(1)(iii) & 41(2) are similar and therefore the interpretations outht not to differ widely. But here are cases decided by the Supreme Court itself, 66 ITR page 725 & 72 ITR page 603, where different conclusions have been made on the word 'sale'. Since there is a Supreme Court decision directly available on the point i.e., a definition of 'sale' for the purposes of s. 32(1)(Iii), I see no reason to ado....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nce-sheet of the company as on 30th June, 1973 audited and certified by the firm's auditors M/s. P.B. Vijayaraghavan & Co. The net worth was determined by the above Chartered Accountants at Rs.2,39,586.03, being the excess of the assts of Rs. 27,37,514.84 over the liabilities of Rs. 24,97,928.81. The above gross assets of Rs.27,37,514.84 included the value of fixed assts comprising buildings, plant and machinery etc. Valued at Rs. 4,74,652 arrived at as under:- Written down value as on 1-4-1973. Rs. 5,02,641 Additions from 1-4-1973 to 30-6-1973. Rs. 52,461 . Rs. 5,55,102 Less: Depreciation Rs. 69,514 . Extra sift . allowance. Rs. 10,396 Rs. 80,450 W. D. vs. As on 30-6-1973 Rs. 4,74,652 Under clau....