TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed the deceased as receiver and manager of the properties of the firm. The dissolution ordered by the court was made effective from May 14, 1958. The firm owned both movable and immovable properties, of which the value of the immovable properties was estimated at $ 1,86,000. The death was on August 15, 1958. In his return the accountable person treated the immovable properties as outside the scope of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. But this view was not accepted by the department, which opined that the family consisting of the deceased and the accountable person was but entitled to a half share in the assets of the erstwhile firm and such share should be treated as personal property, rather than as having the character of immovable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rules regulating the manner in which the nature and locality of different classes of assets shall be determined for the purposes of this section. Rule 7, which has been framed in exercise of this power, prescribes that the share of a partner in a partnership shall be treated as an indivisible asset for the purpose of determination of its nature and locality, and that is movable, notwithstanding that the firm owns immovable property. Prima facie, the rule, as its language suggests, covers only the share of a partner in an existing partnership, and a dissolved partnership, without straining the language, cannot be brought within its ambit. But this does not appear to make any difference to the revenue in the instant reference. The law seems ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed a piece of immovable property that once belonged to the firm, even in that case the law assumes it to be in lieu of his share of the profits of the firm and the allotment is, therefore, to be regarded as of a movable property in the shape of such share. This proposition has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in A. Narayanappa v. B. Krishnappa. The question there was whether a particular karar was admissible in evidence, the argument being that because it was not registered, it could not be received in evidence. The karar recited that from a particular day the firm's business was brought to a close and from that day onwards one of the partners gave up to the other his right in the machine, etc., and also in the business by way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court, to which one of us was a party, applied the ratio of A. Narayanappa v. B. Krishnappa in a reference arising out of the Gift-tax Act. This court held whatever be the character of the property brought in by the partners, or acquired in the course of the business, it became the property or trading assets of the firm and that a partner was entitled only to his share of profits, if any, accruing and upon dissolution to a share in the moneys realised, which represented the value of the property. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dewas Cine Corporation two individuals, who each owned a cinema theatre, formed a partnership to carry on business in partnership as exhibitors of cinematograph films. The cinema theatres were shown in the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
