9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of capital gains under section 45 vis-a-vis section 50 of the Income-tax Act. 2. Deletion of addition on account of interest paid to other concerns. 3. Cross objection regarding the computation of capital gain on the transfer of an undertaking as a composite unit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Computation of Capital Gains under Section 45 vs. Section 50 of the Income-tax Act The primary issue revolves around whether the capital gains should be computed under section 45 or section 50 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee sold its manufacturing division as a going concern for Rs. 7.30 crores and initially declared long-term capital gain based on the valuation by a Chartered Accountant firm. However, the assessee later argued that no capital gain could be charged, citing judgments from higher courts. The Assessing Officer disagreed, computing short-term capital gain under section 50 by adding liabilities to the consideration and deducting the written down value (WDV) of the assets. The CIT(A) directed that capital gain should be computed under section 45 as long-term capital gain. Both parties objected to this decision. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration for individual assets was not specified, but the plant and machinery were indeed transferred, attracting section 50(2). The Tribunal emphasized that if the price attributable to plant and machinery could be ascertained, short-term capital gain could be computed under section 50(2). The Tribunal referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including CIT v. Artex Mfg. Co., which held that provisions of sections 41(2) and 45 apply if the price attributable to plant and machinery can be determined. The Tribunal concluded that the matter required further inquiry to ascertain the value of plant and machinery on the date of sale and set aside the issue for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. Issue 2: Deletion of Addition on Account of Interest Paid to Other Concerns The second issue concerns the deletion of an addition of Rs. 22,11,296 on account of interest paid to other concerns. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest, noting that the assessee had advanced substantial interest-free funds to sister concerns. The Tribunal observed that similar issues in previous assessment years were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the issue and restored it to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order after detailed examination. Issue 3: Cross Objection Regarding the Computation of Capital Gain on Transfer of Undertaking The cross objection by the assessee argued that the surplus arising from the transfer of the undertaking as a composite unit should not be included in the total income, as the cost of acquisition could not be determined. The Tribunal noted that the industrial undertaking is a capital asset, and the cost of acquisition and improvement had been computed by a Chartered Accountant firm. The Tribunal agreed that taxability should be based on legal provisions, not merely on the assessee's declaration in the return, but the assessee must provide valid reasons for changing its stand. The Tribunal further discussed the applicability of the judgment in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, which held that no capital gain could be charged if the cost of acquisition could not be computed. However, the Tribunal noted that subsequent amendments to the Act allowed for assets with no cost to be treated as having a nil cost. The Tribunal concluded that the issue required further examination to determine the cost of acquisition and improvement accurately. The Tribunal also addressed the argument that capital gain could not be charged prior to the insertion of section 50B, effective from assessment year 2000-01, and found it untenable. The Tribunal held that capital gain on the transfer of a capital asset could be charged if the cost of acquisition and improvement could be determined based on accepted commercial principles. The Tribunal set aside the issue of long-term capital gain and restored it to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, emphasizing the need for detailed inquiry and allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, setting aside the issues for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer, ensuring a thorough and fair inquiry in light of the observations made in the judgment.
|
