1982 (5) TMI 78

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 IT Act and deleting the addition of Rs. 19,170 in respect of capital gains arose to the assessee?" In as much as, in our opinion, the above said question does not call for reference, we are unable to accept the request of the concerned Commr. for the following reasons. 2. The assessment year involved is 1975-76 for which the relevant 'Previous Year' ended on 31st March, 1975. The assessee is Sh. Prakash Chand Jain, a specified HUF. The assessee with his four brothers became a partner in a firm styled as M/s. Jain Solvent Oil Mills which came into existence w.e.f. 1st March, 1974 in respect of which the partnership deed was executed on 3rd March, 1974. In all there were six partners in the said firm including the assessee and hi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s contention in the following words: "19. After carefully considering the rival submissions, in our opinion, the Full Bench Judgment in the case of A. Abdul Rahim is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case immovable property is involved whereas in the said case movable assets were involved, which did not require a registered conveyance deed for their being transferred. As far as the judgment in the case of M.A.J. Vasanaik, here also movable property was involved. That apart, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the said case did not interpret the definition involved in s. 2(47) of the Act because, in its opinion, that was not necessary to decide as to whether development rebate could be withdrawn in consequence of transfer of machiner....