TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 34
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch "C", has referred the following question for the opinion of this court: "Whether, the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the claim of the assessee for depreciation under section 34(2)(ii) specially when the proprietary business was converted into a partnership firm during the relevant accounting period?" The assessment year is 1977-78 and the accounting period is the financ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciation as claimed. The Revenue went in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, for the reasons stated in its order dated November 29, 1985, allowed the appeal of the Revenue in part by holding that the assessee's claim for investment allowance was not justified. In so far as the claim for depreciation was concerned, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was affirmed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing which it functioned have been brought to tax. Section 34(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the Revenue, cannot be invoked for the simple reason that it envisages a denial of the claim for depreciation only in those cases, where the assets are 'sold, discarded, demolished, destroyed". Admittedly, in the present c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an inclusive definition, it includes transfer only by way of exchange or compulsory acquisition under any law and on the facts there is neither exchange nor any compulsory acquisition. It has, therefore, been held that even the inclusive definition of the expression "sold" cannot be applied to the facts of the case. In so far as the definition of 'transfer" given within the meaning of section 2(....