MAHABIR COLD STORAGE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

CIVIL APPEAL No. 469/1976Supreme Court1990 INSC 38207 December 1990Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: KULDIP SINGH, K. RAMASWAMY COLD STORAGE9 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appellant, Mahabir Cold Storage, is a registered partnership firm constituted on November 10, 1958, with its business at Purnea. Previously, the business was conducted by M/s. Prayagchand Hanumanmal, a partnership firm with its head office in Calcutta and a branch at Purnea. The partners of the old firm took a loan from Periwal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. for erecting the cold storage and for its running capital. Subsequently, Periwal & Co. Pvt. Ltd. was inducted as a partner in the Purnea branch to improve management and financial assistance, leading to the formation of the new partnership, Mahabir Cold Storage. This new firm obtained separate registration and was assessed separately from AY 1960-61. In AY 1959-60, M/s. Prayagchand Hanumanmal installed machinery worth Rs. 5,80,055. The development rebate on this machinery was claimed by the appellant in AY 1962-63. The Income-tax Officer and Assistant Appellate Commissioner disallowed the claim, holding that the new firm was neither a transferee nor a successor. The Tribunal, however, ruled in favour of the appellant, stating the business continuity. The High Court, on reference, answered the question in favour of the Revenue.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that for entitlement to development rebate under Section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and Section 10(1)(vib) of the repealed Act), two conditions must be fulfilled: the new machinery or plant must be owned by the assessee and used wholly for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee. There must be unity of ownership and use in the business. Only a successor in interest of the business, fulfilling these twin requirements, is entitled to the benefit. However, if the unity of ownership and use is disrupted, or if a branch of an earlier business is taken over by a new firm that exists simultaneously with other branches of the old business, the benefit of development rebate does not extend to either firm. The Court found that the appellant, Mahabir Cold Storage, was a new identity under the Act and not a successor in interest of the old firm as per the provisions of the Act. The Court noted that the partnership firm, under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, is not a legal entity and cannot be a partner in another firm. The appellant was separately registered and assessed from AY 1960-61. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the development rebate. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellant, being a newly constituted firm, is entitled to claim development rebate under Section 33(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (and Section 10(1)(vib) of the repealed Act) for machinery installed by the erstwhile firm, M/s. Prayagchand Hanumanmal, in AY 1959-60, with the claim made in AY 1962-63? Assessee's Contentions: - M/s. Periwal and Co. Pvt. Ltd. was inducted as a partner by M/s. Prayagchand Hanumanmal merely for better management and financial assistance. - The old partnership continued to exist as an assessable entity, and its character was not lost by the induction of M/s. Periwal and Co. (Pvt) Ltd. solely for profit sharing benefits. - Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the development rebate under Section 33 of the Income-Tax Act. Revenue's Contentions: - The appellant was not 'the assessee' in relation to the machinery and plant. - The owner of the machinery was M/s. Prayagchand Hanumanmal, and as such, the appellant was not entitled to the development rebate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 33(1),Section 10(1)(vib),Section 26A,Section 18,Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

MAHABIR COLD STORAGE v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA DECEMBER 7, 1990 [KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961-Section 31( 1)-Development rebate- Entitlement to unity of ownership and use of asset in business not to be disrupted.

The appellant-assessee is a registered fll"DI. It started functioning w .e.f. May 3, 1956 at Purnea as the branch office of tbe partnership firm M/s Prayagchand and Hanumanmal Periwal with its Head Office at Calcutta. The fll"DI consisted of two partners Prayagchand Periwal and Hanumanmal Periwal.

The partners had taken loan from Periwal & Co. Pvt. Ltd for erection of cold storage at Purnea and for its running capital. Later, Periwal & Co. was taken as a partner in the Purnea Branch for better management and financial assistance. The newly constituted partner- ship obtained separate registration under the Income Tax Act, 1922 as well as under the income Tax Act, 1961 and was separately assessed from the assessment year 1960-61. In the assessment year 1959-60 Prayagchand Hanumanmal instat. · led machinery of the value of Rs.5,80,055 in Sri Mahabir Cold Storage.

For one reason or the other development rebate on the c

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 26A

All 40 judgments and leading authorities on Section 26A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →