1982 (10) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 29, 1972, is justified ?" The assessee was the owner of a land admeasuring 5,455 sq. yards in Alipur ward of Visakhapatnam Municipality. He entered into a partner-ship with one K. Poornachandra Rao in December, 1969, to construct and run a cinema theatre. The capital of the business was stated to be three lakhs. The assessee was to contribute Rs. 1 lakh and he threw the above extent of land in the common stock as representing his share of contribution of one lakh. A regular partnership deed with the aforesaid terms was executed by the partners on May 16, 1970. Some time prior to January 29, 1972, the partners applied for a loan from the Life Insurance Corporation, at whose instance, a formal document dated January 29, 1972, was executed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sfer was effected only in terms of the conveyance deed dated January 29, 1972, and not during the accounting year 1969-70. According to the learned standing counsel, the transfer could be made only by duly registered document which was executed on January 29, 1972, and the transfer could not have been made otherwise during December, 1969, or in terms of the partnership deed dated May 16, 1970. We do not find any substance in this submission. It is enough if reference is made to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 (p. 1304, Col. 2): " The whole concept of partnership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... deed provided that on the dissolution of the firm, the palace should revert to the four sons in equal shares at its written down value as appearing in the books of account of the partnership. In the returns filed for the two assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, the firm claimed depreciation on that palace. The learned judges held that once the palace was treated as forming part of the common stock of the partnership, the partnership became entitled to claim depreciation on that building. In the second of the cases, the learned judges, were dealing with a similar claim for depreciation made for the assessment year 1961-62. It was contended that in the absence of registration, no such transfer could be given effect to and the property known....