2000 (11) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the assets in the hands of the new partnership. In this case there was a firm of two partners constituted by a document dated January 26, 1962, and thereafter there were withdrawals, retirements and introduction of new partners. The last one was on November 1, 1964. The assessee-firm claimed depreciation for the assessment year 1965-66 on the basis of the cost at which it took over the assets from the earlier firm on November 1, 1964. The Income-tax Officer took the view that this was a case of only a change in the constitution of the firm and hence the depreciation should be allowed only on the basis of the written down value arrived at in earlier years. But, however, the Appellate Tribunal took a different view holding that the depr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es" mentioned in item No. 21 in Schedule IX or under item No. 32 of Schedule V and hence allowed development rebate at the lower rate of 15 per cent. for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. On appeal the Tribunal had taken a different view thereby allowing rebate in favour of the assessee. Hence, the reference. In the case of CIT v. Sundaram Spinning Mills [2000] 241 ITR 350, the apex court had considered the meaning of "textiles" and "yam". Item No. 21 of the Ninth Schedule states "textiles" (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed) made wholly or mainly of cotton, including cotton yam, hosiery and rope". The Ninth Schedule was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974, with effect from April 1, 1975, but ....