COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAMLUBHAIYA R MALHOTRA

ITR/119/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011852198713 August 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramlubhaiya R Malhotra, operated a proprietary business, Standard Rolling Mills, from April 1, 1976, to June 30, 1976. Subsequently, on July 1, 1976, this business, including its assets and liabilities, was converted into a partnership firm where the assessee held a 40% share. For the Assessment Year 1977-78 (Financial Year 1976-77), the assessee claimed depreciation and investment allowance on the business assets used during the proprietary period. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim. The CIT (Appeals) allowed both claims. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which partly allowed the revenue's appeal by disallowing the investment allowance but upheld the CIT (Appeals)'s decision regarding depreciation. The revenue has now referred the depreciation issue to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the assessee's claim for depreciation under Section 34(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that depreciation is a legislative provision for normal wear and tear of assets used in earning taxable profits, and the profits from the proprietary business for the period it operated were brought to tax. Section 34(2)(ii) envisages denial of depreciation only when assets are 'sold, discarded, demolished, or destroyed'. The Court found that the conversion of a proprietary business into a partnership firm, where assets are brought in as capital contribution, does not amount to a 'sale' in the legal sense, as the proprietor retains an interest in the assets. The Court also considered the inclusive definition of 'sold' under Explanation (2) to Section 32(1)(iii) and concluded it includes only transfer by way of exchange or compulsory acquisition, neither of which occurred in this case. The extended definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) was deemed applicable only for capital gains computation. The Court agreed with the Madras High Court's decision in A.M. Ponnurangam Mudaliar v. CIT & Anr. The question referred was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on facts in upholding the assessee's claim for depreciation under Section 34(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, when the proprietary business was converted into a partnership firm during the relevant accounting period? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. However, it implies the assessee argued that depreciation is for normal wear and tear of assets used in earning taxable profits, and since the proprietary business's profits were taxed, depreciation should be allowed. The assessee also relied on the principle that conversion of a proprietary business into a partnership firm does not constitute a 'sale' of assets, as the proprietor retains an interest. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that Section 34(2)(ii) of the Act should be invoked to deny depreciation because the proprietary business was 'sold' to the partnership firm. The revenue's case rested on the aspect of 'sale' of the proprietary business.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34(2)(ii),Section 32(1)(iii),Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 119 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : YES

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

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 32(1)(iii)

All 42 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →