2, 4 and 5 which have been answered against the Revenue.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the assessee was a registered firm and number that of an AOP ?
8 lakhs.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim of the assessee that surplus realised by it on sale to the limited companypany was number chargeable to tax, being realisation sale ?
The assessee challenged the liability to tax under s. 41 2 of the Act as well as the liability to capital gains while the Revenue challenged the decision of the AAC about recomputation of profits under s. 41 2 as well as number levy of capital gains in the hands of the registered firm under the provisions of s. 114 of the Act.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee has earned capital gains, which was liable to tax under the provisions of s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961 ?
Whether, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was number entitled to any relief on the basis of the two circulars relied on by it ?
The matter relates to the asst.
5,000 as basic exemption, included the sum of Rs.
8 lakhs, being purchase companysideration received by the assessee and after excluding the sum of Rs.
6 was number pressed by the learned companynsel for the assessee and question No.
7,95,000 in the companyputation of the total income of the assessee under the head Capital gains.
The Tribunal referred the following questions for the opinion of the High Court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the principle of mutuality was number applicable ?
Ltd. for a companysideration of Rs.
3,32,863 in respect of the assets transferred by the firm to the said companypany was chargeable to tax under the provisions of s. 41 2 of the IT Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
He also brought to tax capital gains of Rs.
The Tribunal remitted the matter to the ITO for recomputation of the aggregate amount chargeable as profits under s. 41 2 and as capital gains.
7 was number answered since it did number survive in view of answer to question No.
Questions Nos.
Appeals were filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue against the said judgment of the AAC.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of s. 41 2 were applicable ?
1967 68.
The present appeal relates to questions Nos.
2, 4 and 8 were answered in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, question No.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the registered firm can be liable to capital gains under s. 114 of the IT Act, 1961 ?
1, 3 and 5 were answered by the High Court in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, questions Nos.
On 31st March, 1966 it entered into an agreement whereby it transferred the entire assets of business together with liabilities as a going companycern to a limited companypany, styled M s Electric Control Gear Pvt.
The erstwhile partners of the assessee firm were allotted the shares of the same value in their profit sharing proportion.
The ITO held that depreciation allowed to the assessee firm amounting to Rs.
C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dt.
29th August, 1980.
The assessee is a partnership companycern companysisting of 13 partners.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that s. 34 2 will apply and, therefore, the assessee is number entitled to depreciation ?
