TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of law, namely: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that as it partner in the firm of Poornamala Process, Sivakasi, the assessee was part owner of the machinery and she should be considered as having held the property in question right from her membership as a partner in the firm and that the capital gains arising in the ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e machinery in the hands of the firm would be ascertained by determining the amount of capital gain which had accrued to the assessee by reason of the sale effected by her of the machinery received by her on May 31, 1978, after she had retired from the firm, towards her share of the assets of the firm on her retirement, the machinery having been sold on August 18, 1978. The sale consideration was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wned the assets. The reasoning of the Tribunal is in accordance with the decision of this court, to which we have referred earlier. The first question referred to us therefore is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As regards the second question, we answer, that question also against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal was not required to embark on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
