Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Gurunath Talkies on 7 July, 2009
Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, Aravind Kumar
/<, 1 »§/ IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE BATEE THIS THE 7TH DAY 01:' JULY, 2009 Q PRESENT :§ '=§»@:_. THE I~§€_)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V.8HYLENDRA KFJMAR '
THE HOPPBLE MR. JUSTICEVARA'JI¢_ND I.'r,_4_s_. No.83 oF f.g;Q<i1{_ BETWEEQ V .' I. The Commissioner 0fI::1<:0m£¥'iai< ,'~ V Park View Building, ' ' . ' ~ $9.284/1, IV Mam, _T ;
?,J,Exte3:1$ic}13, V '
Davangcrc. A ' b '
Ofincdmw-.zax. , ' _
<:i1~c1e--I,'--:~:o.75, -- V '
EGG Feet f}o4_11Tbl¢ I€.~=3ai1,. = V .
C3o§aIagoWéa EXtr:V13;sioi1,
2. The: Psssiétaifzt V
: Appellants
for Sri. M.V.SeshacI1ala, Advocate)
AND:
~ , fa:/Ts Guminath Taikies,
* _ Bank Road,
' . f§h:;c1{mag1ur~577 101
: Raspenéefit
VV (33? S3ti.B.V.Shankar13araya:1a Rae, for Sri.K.Venug0pa}3raju, Advocate) This Appéal is filed under Section 268A of in¢{3I€£€.._Ta_X Act, 1961 arising out of oxder dated 1-10-2OC}3_..}L;1ass€d"V~'£i2 V. I.T'.A.Ne.E381/Baz1g/ 2902 for the assessment year praying in formulate the substemtial question c :f__ Iaiiwsfated therein and to allow the appeai any; set a$§i&"f:'-.:t}*3€ "{)X'C1§tI'S passeé by the Income Tax Appéflate 'T'!f3'.bl}1].31'.iI}V"i'T:'§v". No.:"381,!Ba13g]' 2002 dated 1*10-2903-AATa.%,nd--..c-oixfirtc-.;"-L%.___th;;A orders passed by the Appellate Clémfizjssianéré €:c:nfiIini;1g"
the order passed by the Asst.»Co;nmi$s§._ohf:r c.;f"I13f5:<':;ne fi'ax, _ C:i;r<:1$~«I, Shzlmoga (etc. '-- V ' -- V This Appeal Comizlg on 1;6aIi§i'g;;*-A tfiis day, SHYLEHSRA KUMAR' ¢;,"jdeii.;rerg;g1 ':h:_:.§a}39wing;
This is .,1.;1:$der Sectien 26(1) A of the Zviggésn-e.iL,%rax gféf' Short, 'the: Act') flirected against thét « ' . »If1.ceme-=Tax Appeiiate Tribunal, Bangaigre §'Tg95 :'38}./ 2082 rendered on 1-10-2003. " V' A .;;1ppea1V"lEi駀l been admitted far examinatien on Tféflfiwifig qiiéstiens of Eaw:
"\¥fti§;'t1§}:;f;er this Colombia device adopted by the H ;"e:~:.s3 c:5'ssec in admitting two new gaartuers namely VV M.Ve:1::kat:armaiah and Smt Sujatha venkatarannajah and §€iI'fi}i'€tiI1g a3}. tbs aid partners to mtim from the firm by receiving a ccnsideraiien amamlt of Rsg16,5S,64?'/- from the aid partners would amount to a transfer attzacting ~ V. gains provision as per the Income: Tax A<: :}'-P -
2. Whether the Txébunal was" ébrrctct _ various judgments of the Courts in a1'rivi3:1g at f:zr;__ centilfisii-3:1 1115;:-it'Vv7.'T1'%1"€:I't3 '{vé'S , no Transfer on mceipiConsidEr_3:$i0t§.= by V the retixing partpers * incdming..vv firaxtnazs without E!DLC:'~;. iv the amended prOViSi0I1§ of ..
under:
é;;:%$és_ses firm am the reicvant assegsmeafi The firm was caniying on the husiIi:3:s$ cef a cinema theattrs, comprising sf »fc§Vur.v1§axf§n£:I's% "w1;o were entitled ts share: the pmfiis 9f the 'Fh€"_"_v~pt::::§ie1zs yaar corgespcanéizig $0 the asssssment _V :§r'€a.i: iE$. ' i{-4-19§'4 to 31~3~I€-EQE. 15; I'€C{}If£S'{i€11ti0I1 of the xp"e;3i:r;;¢r:§}jip firm {oak place gemé Where: in Jziiy" 1994 by
-- of twa yarmars tn» the partnership fimx. It is " Mifidicatsd in the backs csf accounts that 1:116 incoming partners brought ahout 17 iakhs towarcls their cagital partners 3116 subsequently the oxiginal fzmr partners going out sf the firm leaving the entire assets 0f the hands of the newly added partners, is virtually . invaivmg the trarxsfer 0f the assetsigf 1':he partners, as firm continued in the and in this View e;:rf the legal .f)c>=3_iu1:io1e1 ;
assessing C-ficer 1:0 examine of the transaction concluded involved aciditional new tvgrp July 1994 tmé the in the month of December with the amaunt which the
new ;::arm Iciafi V in by way of their capital eontifibixtion to "the sharixzg that amount minus and "V':£'7§;'If§,1;i:€}'i E"'{f{e1#;r:«va}ue""'0f the assets of the firm vizrtually $0 fiafisfer cf asseta in the new partners and there.fere~'ih_e3' was Iiahie to be assessed 01:: the gains ' £3.'§tIfib12ztaE3'V}.fi to the transacticm the value of the sale reeizmzlfierafiofl fer the tmnsfer 0:? the aseete was taken to be ameunt bmught in by the partners and shared €:}JI}C}.0£1gS'{ the eariier partners and determined the assessable income of 3%/% the firm by applying Section 45%} surf the: fixrt and callad upfin the aSS€$S€€ to pay the tax alcmg with interest under Secfion 234;. and 23413 of the Act. Separate penal'-:y p';.~g;e§5§a*::£i[i.~1:%gs. '\3iF"C§'€ also initréatetii undsr Section 45(3) of the Acts' u . 'R K is .« 3.3. The aggrieved 3.SS€SS€':'t3 é 316...' K x Commissioner of income Tax (Ap;;::£re;1s:;}'_"Id:i1t .' success. : " 2 A ' % 3.4 The: Appeiiate 3§§1t11ox'§;tyL. .!7.1;e"fi.3acts and noticing the d¢vc10pmct1§;"i gudgmcnt of that':
Sugaxtniié' Bhafs case as also the subseq'i§. e1:z% «.§11€:1gIVVr1'r:'::i"T1:tV_€)f.{Il:i1'»?isi011 Bench of Bombay High C0111? in t}1e'cas'¢ {if " Commissionei" of 1309233 Tax '~ .§§EaEji;.._Ass<§£iiiats:3'raporte€i in 265 {TR 346 and being of 'v§.e§:'a.3 4:116 above eabjeci of the Lcgzislatien 'by z':§ii3";{i1i€>d11§3i§i.i§:_3.V. :':§f Sectieu 3 and 4 3:0 Section 45 being €{6s:ig:I1e<:iv._ tb fircvafit Ieakagé of I'€X?€1'.1i_'i€ by Asssssess V' '{ ~i1A§V.diilg:%ng in transacticns which was camouflaged and CV61} ' 0.i}:1.éfi€a?i$e which are Capable: of figcaping the mat of the tax as " Wé.apiiai gaing. {)f}iJ3€(i that the Assesfiiag Oflicer has rightly' brought to tax {ha income attxibutahis to the cafiital gain of V. the firm undm: Seciion 45 of the Act. Uphokiing the vim: 0:"
the Assessing Gfficer and fortified the maseniag by ref:-z*1fing to the previsions cf Sf:()ti0}I1 188 r/vs: Section 177[2).&.g3§ and noticing that there were two changes in the V' :33?' the garinership firm for the accQL1nti:3,g u u and of the year, Home of the er$t\x;'}:;i1§: the firm anal {ha firm confin1ié%1:VL"01;1y tggt» izsialljr new partners who had bgcn "i'AZ3a_ '{21'1c:":. way in {ha accounting year it pf the assets cf $316. firm in the hgjzcis of-élé' :'>:;'é::$' the IECW set of par'tn:'::E::-fg as conxprised of four: partners had {I'a1):S'ft:§'1'f:fi' 5f the firm toT the new firm compgnsing n.éw}yVV3;{'};(isfii {)éI"i'13€I"S. £11 this View of the matter t1§::.ta§3peaV§.m'« « V "£$f~$1if.t:sc two orders ma assassetz hafi fixrflzer cafiiéd §fnc0n1e~tax Apgefiate Tribunal. The assessee Vmet éucctss. The inéome Tax Apyeflate '}"'ri"buna1 'soak that there is rm dissolution of the: firm, whareupan i.%§?% assets had bfififfi trmzsferrcé to the partners of the farm, and as them is my dissghjition, Sectian 434} of $136 Act is net g/ attracted. arid drawing support from a U'iViSi(}11 Bench Judgnxent of the Kerala High Caufi: ix; the cam-e;_ of Commissioner cf income Tax V3. Kuzmamktflam 257 ETR 544 and being of the View that the ' tbs Ksrala High Cmirt in i{unna1v:r:.k'u£.21m's'_" %.';;,4,§é"s V much akifi is the facts prevailirlig " .' applying the reasorxing givenV»Vb§.%' " " L' K11Imamkulam's case the 'hgfofffi also: being of the View in taking the viérw having :::0nsit:1eI't:d,"i:§1c3 vi€:W$'=,_ex§r6;SS£§d- by 9111* High Cmirt axxd tilts' following decisions: {£3 13:1'. Vs.CG'I' (1997) 224 me 431 _ {E<I3:t'11}._' . _ g.T§§xas:::____g;1d sons vs.cGT (2901) 24? am 588 (Si?) {';iC33f§'s.NS Gait: Chettiar (1971) 82 rm 599(s<:; ' .._ {iv}. . _.;%:ag:'a:zsam Abuja Vs.CGT (2000) 246 me 509(s<::3 {ie} __ 3 James Andaman V$.CIT (1960) 89 ITR 323 (SC) 1" ';:v:) fiunil Sitidha rthhhai Vs. CIT (1985) 156 rm 339 {$3} {vii} ¥.T.A No.65 cf 19??'-3.
alloweé the appeal and mvemed {ha order passed by the Assessing Ofiicer cenfxrmcfi in apiaeal by the fI'S"E Apgtflate Authority. .' 3.6. it is in such circumstances, the M appeal before us seeking for angr,-tx%ér"'«t9 "
quesfions of law mferred t0Vi:1 ';i:.¢§ judgment. »T I T» A A
4. We have hea;:f;ti«_ 'étanding counsel appearing for _.~..C'x5m,§;ijssioner and S1ii.B.V;VS:1iTa1:LkVéira. 11é?:':1,:yé21a"-Ra<§;""1t:a"VI13ed counsel appearing for the fcs;é::;nd5:;1{¢~§a::se3<SVée: "
; 127*. _ Suhmissicn V" of Sri.Aravind leazmeci ccxunseti fé71*~ $36 I€K}é[ }1I€ is that the Tribunal has Committed :"s:lfij'1§;13: ftyflawéng the masoning and the judgment afA3;3:x__e iéigh Court in E{13.nn:=3emkulam's case; that the Ceurt has macie a; mistake in not noticiug the V' éifctczi of tftie; pmvisizms of Sczctimz 45(4) 6f the Act; that W$éct;i0n 43(4) fiaing atiractafi not merely in the {3é1$f: af transfer 9f pmmrty fnvoiviing dissoluiiztm of the firm but é/, M} transfer fin any other Situaticsn as is indicated under . 451%}. has E33311 Gverloekefi and attcntioxl has V' the apggiicabiiity of the j3I'OViSiOIlS of Seating; Where the as$t:ts of the firm on way of dissoiutian cf the firm a1éVc_1_ '}3.3 ¥:he:' Apfizssnt' vflagfilghvé $216115: was no tiisseltitioxlfl in hefiigi T_ 'ftij1eVAv%£i:'ansfer 531" the assats {if {he firm vii1 .{1.1¢ fiariisr partners "M "the firm Eater as.i§ ,4x?as:Ah@§%i::§33;'V.§%:' }33I'?;I}.€1"S wifitz afidi'cio:1_é:%:'d that the We incomring I1:3:w invefitmerit of Rs. §?,G€;'3, ,v0fZ)§(A/AQV i:.);'f<)1" the amount which is {ha value dawn value of tha asmts of fhfi fmgu. as I"€f§1§::w'-.5£§{V7i"i ifi fiifae Eooks of accounts of tha firm, Q13 . 0E'i§""7i§1éAgf3i€}I13iI'i'§a"i:i;:£3¥i1f)I1 0f the two ézicoming new partners '}3..a%?:§A1_3j5gV " by the fciur gut gazing parnmrg, it is céeaitfiy a irangfer by the firm fer considcraiian anti "~-u.__Vs:%1er&fo1'€;_§§%1@ §;=:;ovision$ of Sactiafi. 45(4) is deariy attra;c'{.e& Hiéia jézégmmfs {sf the Kfiraia High Cuurt in ../_ "'§{?a3:::namk':;%a§;'3 C386 may :19: 'be of any assistargee in the V §3;'."€':S€I17€ simafioiz, $/ 11
3. it is else urged that the critim V. the same accounting period agtld; .__fi1e V raconstitutioa cf the {um twicfi in {tic as indicated above it in ainfiéié 'i;h¢ " 51" V A * S€{3"fi{)i1 45(4) of the fact and f;A11;;vvvf5{>utg0i:1g partners had recnzived credited to their accozmts, in V the if-'-,"§'ii.{iC"ES the gains which was firm and in turn distributes} definitsly taxed as capitalizgajxn agpeai de:sc:rve$ {:3 'cm: Ei1lOW€ii. 3', Léagiiéd ¥:<>u1:§s€:}¢ izmuid alga éraw sustenance {rem i}1€.»§.ig<:%gis3€nt V:é'£""--.f}:1§§'___ S'upr&ms Court in tbs C386 of Suni} »AS%iLiri;a1?«i%15$«.ta><vAT$f13.$tain tint: View taken by the Assessing Oflicer the :first Appellate Authority arid submits *';ba {'t1:e"---Vz§..p';3t:3iat€ Tribunal having reversed thc order passed Appsilatt Authority on a tctaiiy emnnmus %:_fi{ia1£*Standimg of the provisions and by? Wreng appiication {Bf judgment of the Ksraia High Court in KuI:11am§<:u]am's @/ cases, the matter wamagats intsrfareace. 12
8. it is also submitted that tbs facts as M the: presém appeal are more akia to the facts..a$ _: - {£16 Bombay case, that the elaborately discussed 11:31: ----
reintroduction of the provisioriégrf» of Section. 45 but 3350 has of thc deieticfil. Gf C1aLES€ (fig) 'béiifie Act and the itiagislativtt iI1?L€":?:1t' }e@aée of revenue and the to the facts of the pre.sez1t~'C3;sc 'appeal s1;<5'{1id"be allowézd. 9, 'Szjiiiravirgci raiéo tiraw attention of the Court to t1ij.c':~ ¢a;'1iéx~-.j:1(1gmé':1t..'of this Court in $116 case of . V3: Comiffiéésionel' of EI1r:>0me~'I'aX reported in 28'?' this judgment was in 331 fairness brought to Athéa 'aha Court by Mr.B.V.Sha11ka;ranara§az1a Rae V'-»iear11c(iv.§éunse} appearing far the responszient and not cited in support of the case of the Revennet. 813 that as it x may, the Bivisimzz Bench if this Ceurt has {allowed tha viaw men by mg Bombay High cam in A.N.N3ik's case, rather 13 than to foiiow the View taken by thfi": Kerala High Cogrt in K11:mamku}am's case and therefore aiso we are follow the View expressed by this Court in _ 10.011 '(he ether hand appcgxrizlg 03_--"1"_' ' awsessarz 8:71. B. V. Shankaranmayafia » . V" V : ,,V¢i:,,_ { vehemently urge that this is {::.-5:315' 'f§'hf;17:é * should dismiss the appeal; "1)é":Q2ri$iof§é;' _ Sgeaéian 45(4) are not at all attra<:tedVi;::)._..V:f};¢ ;:ase; that the facts of the pmsent gio dissolution of a pax1x;t=;fShip:fi.;€:1;%a§:-- 11(i aCtual txansfer of any of the assiéz-ts 't0:_:_pé1rtners Whethsr incoming or out going in t}1€__2i't;_f,§é'I1{,§e of any transfer of capitai assets t1:1'e.?_:"e'~7,i3: fie: ques"ti;oz.t._._0_fv capitai gain arising to the firm ané ';t,"§;é:'::fo2°::_ ihez:€§'is_ :10 transfer sf capital assets in the hands of i;'{1w:'.:f;.*sfm§ iliafifafarf: submitted that Izothing eise follows to 'V attre;:'i€:t.t'i§,1cj fifézvisions ofSecti911 45 3:16; therefore the order 0f u f§'r;'§i::nal shouid be confirmed and the agapeai be:
. éifisémissaé.
1 3.. Elabgratizlg the submissiefls, S;'i.Sha:ikara11a:'aye1na Rae would submii that ihf,' Word V] 14 wansfer is éefznaci in the Act ix}, Sub-=Section (47) of Secjgian 2 3391 it necessariiy cennotes transfer of 21 capitai as$%t¥ a:_2f:i would urge that the transaction of the _ firm during July 1994 by admitfigg aucnther reconstitution of the }= perzfaiiting four amongst the to go' the partners gnawing out am the afvfghe firm, even then it Wouid not éémc 011:: 0f the six s1ib--c}aus§:s cf :b.,$ection 2; that none of tha as;;e£:e;_(:§i' fhé: §§1 Vft'a:«~.ct..1::«aeen transfemzzd to any c>f1.:1:}:u:f: new ant}. 110 capital assets of incoming' pi" QutVg<SL::ig has baen contrihutsd, that if at the ffafgsaciiofis Iiave only rcstlitcd in a 1033 to the . V. Iflcfat' any as the capital account of thc: firm " 16 lakhs ami (3661 got reducavd with §a§r.:§; e:ntV. made to the four Gutgairgg partnsrs; that "~.«.._ ..,Whai with the firm was ar<>"13.:c:<:§ Rs.4S,0GQ/«- aflvzi «. ';§;g.g:5fD1'€ the traasactiesm is 011$ 0:' loss arid not of gain. and tiifsre is no qaestian of the firm biting taxed on any gain;
that there is neither transfer nor any gain. There is no ®/ V. «_ apgyrifil. 1 15 questicm of tile provisions of Section 45(4) being and therefore the judgment of the Appellate ' ajfzrmed. '
12. in support Mr.ShankaraI1aI'a37a.na R230 ~ "of flie 2 V L' Court to the decision the 23 1 rm 52 and would S1z.l:;§iniAt'&--V1:I:1za:_bz f?;tie_':g§}al;a1;3,ra Pradesh High Court having followed Kerala High Court and 'kéiiéla High Cmlrt as foilowttri' High Court": being the cormctvvieiv commends' 'Vf(%§' <1'§_11i' acceptance and pieads far this View fo11V<'3'*.=s?eAd_ b§?. ii1is Court, in deciding the pmstsni ' :Sha,nkaranarayana Rae walzlci disfiiaguish the jiidhgjfiziaxif {§if'j_?}§;i£$ Court in Suva1t:lh.an's case by cm:
that (;:2 f;acf:s them is a distinctioxx in the sense, that case .,;g§:s}aix?;¢c}V" di$SG113.i;i{)}T1 of {he firm aria} one of the €I'$tWhi}£ ' p;3fi1iér taking over the arzfiire assetg of the fixm anti in fact V 16 {hare was a transfer 9:" assats and dissolutiém partner taking 3}} 131:: assets Crf the firm. V ' V
14. Painting out to the factsflfyf tbs '* submigsion of Mr.8b_ankaranaya3:1a:=._:'Rag3-'$3 transfer in the presemt ease as as«é'e.tV:fs' ;
firm and 110116: 01" the partners' of £1336:
assets Qfthe firm. ' ' V. R x
15. We hasfé Vigojnsidcratian to the submisséofis at the mcerds;
3 chaquered histsry. We are mast jWi1¢thcrA';€Vt: ':2E:{ou}d he described as cokmrfui V. ¢_hist<?_3r§'i E 1 iii: §i§}§}EéfS,...ifl. {ha parfint Act Sectien 45 was 3}} by V"._qA;*.i3};:%1i' and,'V41atérfii3a'a_s introduceé sub»-Sections (2) to {4} by Way thus year 1964.' Seubsfictisns (2) and {3} 'Vwere a§?:;;ini{t¢é' ¥.%¢,e.f 1~4»-1966 by Financa Act 1964 ané get 'A 'ba:,E<:--.§u 51$ statute book by Way af amendment thmngi:
..&T¢'_--'§""§fi,§é;fi;$n iawa {fimandmenfi Act 198% 'i3§,?.€;f 1-4~85 and again fifiéfiififiéi as per Finaficg As': 3981?' 1%-:63" $4-£988 azfid 80 an V and so fafih, _ M 2 17 1?. While this positian continued far s;0}:,2::t': F'ii1an<:e. Act of 198'? Section {.3) and (4) were _ with effact {mm 1-4-1988 and Scictiofl 47 was omitteci. N ' K V' V V'
18. The Divisien Benc2i»i'o£__aBoiij:ii:.;;i§s Hvigiicvi case {If AN .Naik's case has tv}::1e i§;gis}ative history, and in this ?3aci§_"igI*ov'iié§V. and tin:
manner in whia::h the and {4} of the Act is 13:) be Evifie -sizénply, with respect agitac 'iéi:=i_i:h._ {.,!:;;3V.Vt'" bmtieniiig this judgment with furfhfilf Vidiséusisiéia five find the discussion {here C3.}Z1';l?zf:)'{'v'§§éi3 impf£;v_§¢V:iV upfiri by 0111" adding to it. V _$9.> 'é¥é" also notice while the eagriier Bivisitm 8:311:31} of '{:"1i$""'{':'»(}I.1;'1tj'§'iv'V'--:§_"'f;«'%;£::§'s fact preferred the View taken by the 'fjiigh Court in preference so the View expressed by V' :f_'Ii.<§c:1"32a High Cmzri, Whilft has distinguished '(ism vimv ' fifigpifissad by the Madhya Frazzissh High Ceurt in Mopefi and " .m§s'f'§3ChiflI}€S' case} which in turn hafi f€}HOW€Ci {ha Keraiza vim iii}, K¥.i:inamkulam's case.
18
20. The net I%t$11}I of the above deveiepngagééitfi.' this Court has preferjzed the view expressed_ High. Court in prfzference to the vievg Madhya Pradesh High Court Ln jdze cf *' the scope and intent 0f Sub-Sééfigins '3 45. V We are of the View tha'E':i';1::ge 3 and 4 should bs given fuli efiecf the legislative intszrit and ' '.j$_::~!:*:%';'§£i§:VVf"£:§vro11gh.t 'back 01:1 statute ¥::c::<:;=k" care to deiete Ciausctgf ' é3:CiV1§1c2i§.11g ciausc: :2 reads as unéer: V ' é . ' in Section 45 shall apply to the .~ . A_ fol1{3<£1:ing Lra;nsfei"$:«~. .. _____ M s ' fiishibufiofi cf capital assets on the tetal or T paxtitien of a Hindu undivided family;
"21. Seation 4'? was intmducefi ts takfi gut certain ~ u "t:*a11sa::fi0nS which mzherwisye are transfers «sf capital assets arsfi otherwise taxabls under' Sacficm 45, from being iaxed. 19
22. On iihf: rreintrociuction of S1lb*S€C{iOI} (3) afié' me Finance Act 3.937 Clause (ii) of Section "
expressly omitteé rcmoviing the ggratactive jif'11'c:. u Legislative intent is quite clear /£7: .' gaod enough :0 take care 0i' a:ii1§fV' * L' there is transfer of capital ass¢£...?:§}--*:_a:1;§LA méfié ensum the gait: being taxes} "%s£ét_;::r§;'az_aended and this is the View takan'
23. As ' agreement with. thg Eifirzgmbay High Ceurt in A.N.P€a;€§:'s mew that in the present case the Assééaifig indicated that the S€}C'i€S 0f tmnsgtctign féccrjgcisfittztioia of fins: twice; once in Dftiiflflflbfil' 1994 and entire assets : §1anfi.s 0f the newly adéeé twc: partners, ~{fé:':1%far sf assaets :31' the firm in the sense that the '-~§-assets '¢f_:f;he firm as had béen hclé by the erstwhile partnsrs V":V{AgV.:r;aj{;1sferred to '£336 newly added two partners theugh ail V' aibng the asstitfs 9f the firm cxtngztinfiefi in the hands Gf ths firm. 'i:herefore, wa hoid thcrc is transfer of capital assets 20 Within the meaning of Sectizm '2(4'?) 3116} We are unablg to accept the submission cantrary made by the 1eaIu:;¢d-- §:{{):i12M$(:«l ébr the assézssee.
24. in this View 0f the mz--3g'i1i{5:':*"v;te&' question in the afiirmative iI1VfaVO'a:'i1*V"0:3ié.A_t:}};{f that there was a transfer that 'V capital gain transactiongfix '3écti9z1 .?¥i'5(Z§}..ofvv Act.
25. The second in the negative in favour of the rem'-'3:1_1_1e hoiding that the judgmerzxts; Tribunal were in the C0fi§t:'.:X?_i aS' if exi5fi:d prior to its amendment in the year iV9Q87. gf 198?' having expressly and ; §'€fiJ3iffiV bm-ught about the amendment to fi ix3<.;f§t§3e min¥:r0du€i.ngASs<:ti9n_s (3) ané. (4) to Section T-4$«%s§ im§;;m§_t,' Tribune} should have examined the appeal bcflfire by applying the stammzy provisions as it Z timing the accountixzg yefiod relevant t0 the « asafiésmeni year 1994-95 and not memiy by following the _Hp:z§'i13.Cip1es, the rafio 0f the judgmeni of the Supreme Coufi:
which haé bean. rendered slightly in a ditfemnt context. | §"' 2? §%*i5::§'€"::s has b;:0ug§:s.§. :0 Gm: :;_:}*:icé-: 3.323% £2': r%5*$f3a*§:'§. §:;a;
"mi magi'. af €336 E0m§}a*g EE""%:1 C;<}u:"§. :11': E-§£€.§%ai3'{'S :;:;~'s.$§5 253:5 gigs 81:: _;;°::::%gm€:':§ sf ikiii" %éig'%: {:9-gm :S~§:;:--;:"<§%';»:5g;.€:é; V :;%:;';;e;{:;.. S§}€':{fEE'i§ Lr;.2'w§3 p<:ii"€ii>r:Ts ézégwgi ?i;;a:::;i:': ;;§;f::t§?é3"a'é:s:,§ .1; "
agiii éiéasifii Ems 32:16:': g:'.;:«';:;i'::€§ ;;;st:m,§:%;.:a§.e;, _:3f1:~;2;%; pffizfliafi We without as thé iaw whiaszz and questions are afiswefgd no-' question of poséponing the decision 4; We our appreciation of the quaiity "asV$iSt3;i'<L{:a mceivaci fiom the Iearmrd counsei for the 3§£:Gv"{he laariiittti counml fer the assesses. Iudgé Sd/1-s % 3 %""~'*/ ' Judge