TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case relating to the assessment year 1988-89 for rejecting the claim for the assessment year 1989-90, which is in appeal before us. 3. The assessee is in the business of ship breaking. The assessee s business consists of breaking ships and obtaining metal which is later on sold in the market. For the assessment year 1988-89 the assessee s claim was rejected for two reasons, viz. ( i )the business of ship breaking does not amount to manufacture or production of an article or a thing; and ( ii )the appellant company had succeeded to the business on retirement of one partner, viz. Mr. Upletawala and as such, it was a business formed by re-construction of a business already in existence. For the assessment year 1988-89, the ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rship firm with two partners, viz. Shri Abbasbhai Upletawala and the appellant company, i.e. Abid Co. Steels Pvt. Ltd. This partnership was dissolved under the aforesaid Deed and the company, viz. Abid Co. Steels P. Ltd. became the proprietor of the business carried on in the name of company and Shri Abbasbhai Upletawala retired from the firm. Emphasis was laid on the following provisions on the Dissolution Deed : "AND WHEREAS the Party of the First Part has expressed his desire to retire from the partnership with effect from 1st December, 1986 and thereby both the parties have agreed to dissolve the partnership leaving the party of the Second Part as the sole proprietor of the unit M/s. Abid Co. 1. The Party of the First P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 80J could be claimed by an amalgamated company. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Pigot Chapman Co. [1982] 135 ITR 620, which was a case of some partners retiring and the remaining partners succeeding to the business. On the facts of that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it was a case of a new firm succeeding to the old business and therefore, the successor firm was entitled to relief under section 25(4) of the I.T. Act, 1922. 6. The learned Departmental Representative conceded that the issue regarding manufacture and production of new article or thing was covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case reported in 168 CTR 489 (cited supra). As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
