2002 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee to Shri A. M. Buhari is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking ?- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding, and had valid materials to hold that the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking and also the amount of Rs. 16,000 spent by the assessee towards legal expenses in connection with the compromise agreement is a permissible deduction in computing the capital gains in the assessee s case? Both the questions is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs paid by the assessee to A. M. Buhari is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking.
2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs received by the assessee from India Tobacco Co. Ltd. and passed on to A. M. Buhari is part of the consideration for sale and assessable in the hands of the assessee.
3. Whether the amount of Rs. 16,000 spent by the assessee towards legal expenses in connection with the compromise agreement with A. M. Buhari is a permissible deduction in computing capital gains.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Expenditure of Rs. 2 lakhs:
The primary issue revolves around whether the payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to A. M. Buhari can be considered as an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking. The court observed that although A. M. Buhari initiated legal proceedings as a minority shareholder, the litigation's main objective was to prevent the transfer of the hotel to India Tobacco Company Limited. The payment of Rs. 2 lakhs was made to settle this litigation, which was a significant impediment to the transfer. The court held that the payment had an inextricable link to the transfer of the capital asset and was necessary to facilitate the transfer. Therefore, the expenditure was deemed to be incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer.

2. Sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs:
Regarding the sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs received from India Tobacco Company Ltd. and passed on to A. M. Buhari, the court noted that this amount was paid to settle Buhari's claims, facilitating the transfer. The court held that while the Rs. 1.5 lakhs received from India Tobacco Company Ltd. formed part of the sale consideration, it also constituted an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer. Thus, it was deductible in computing the capital gains.

3. Legal Expenses of Rs. 16,000:
The final issue concerned the deductibility of Rs. 16,000 spent on legal expenses related to the compromise agreement with A. M. Buhari. The court held that these legal expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the capital asset. Consequently, the expenditure was permissible as a deduction in computing the capital gains.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions of law as follows:
1. The payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to A. M. Buhari was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of the Bradford undertaking.
2. No specific answer was necessary for the second question due to the answer to the first question.
3. The legal expenses of Rs. 16,000 were deductible in computing the capital gains.

The judgment was in favor of the assessee, and no costs were awarded.

← Previous Next →