TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by RANGANATH MISRA J. Civil Appeal No. 850 of 1973 : This appeal is by certificate and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The assessee and his five brothers constituted a Hindu joint family. The relevant assessment year is 1953-54, corresponding to the accounting period ending on June 30, 1952. The joint family owned, inter alia, a sugar factory at Bijnore. In 1930, there was a partition in the family and the members of the erstwhile joint family constituted themselves into a partnership firm which took over the sugar factory and operated the same. In the year 1944, Sheo Prasad, one of the brothers, who was a partner of the firm instituted a suit in the Lahore High Court for dissolution of the firm. Par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer maintained that those were revenue receipts. In due course, the Tribunal ultimately upheld the view of the Revenue. One more question that arose was the admissibility of a claim of expenditure being payment of interest on a loan taken for purchase of shares in the sugar factory. The Income-tax Officer had allowed the claim of ₹ 75,211. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave notice to the assessee and disallowed the same. The Appellate Tribunal reversed the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the admissibility of the claim. Then, the assessee as also the Revenue applied to the Tribunal to refer the case to the High Court. As far as relevant, the following questions were referred for the opinion of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'In respect of depreciation of such buildings, machinery, plant or furniture being the property of the assessee ...... .' In order to qualify for an allowance under clause (vi), the assessee has to make out that the building, machinery, plant or furniture is the property of the assessee. Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing for the assessee urged that clause (vi) is attracted even where an assessee owns a fractional share in the machinery. On the other hand, Mr. Brij Lal Gupta appearing for the Department urged that ownership of a fractional share in machinery does not attract clause (vi). The point is not free from difficulty. The High Court ultimately came to hold : In order to qualify for an allowance under clause (vi), the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness and, therefore, constituted taxable income. No other point was canvassed before us. This appeal has to fail and is hereby dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Civil Appeal No. 233 of 1976: This appeal between the parties is also by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court and relates to the assessment year 1955-56 (the accounting period ending on 30th June, 1954). Leave has been confined to two questions as would appear from the order granting the certificate namely, as to whether one of the instalments received from the assessee out of the said amount of ₹ 68,000, as referred to above, in respect of an earlier assessment year constituted a taxable receipt. The second question relates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remained an unabsorbed loss of ₹ 78,084. In the assessment year in dispute, the assessee claimed that the unabsorbed loss of the preceding year should be brought forward and set off against its share in lease money received from the receiver in respect of S. B. Sugar Mills. This claim of the assessee has been disallowed and the question arises as to whether the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off the loss as claimed by it. The High Court referred to section 24 of the Income-tax Act of 1922 and indicated that two conditions had to be fulfilled before the claim of tse off of carried forward loss could be admitted: firstly, the income against which the loss has to be set off should be income from business and, secondly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the purposes of computing the depreciation allowance, the written down value of the business assets be enhanced so as to reflect the sum of ₹ 4,50,000 in place of 1/6th share representing the share of Sheo Prasad. Similar claim had been raised by Banarsi Dass in his own assessment. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim and such rejection has been upheld throughout. We have already turned down the claim of Banarsi Dass. This claim has, therefore, to be rejected. We may additionally point out that under the scheme of the Act, it is the assessee who alone is entitled to maintain such claim of depreciation and it would indeed be difficult, within the framework of the scheme contained in the statute, to maintain a separate value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
