9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of the date of sale for capital gains tax calculation. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the date on which the sale of printing machines gave rise to long-term capital gains. The assessee had a printing press with machinery imported from U.S.S.R. An agreement was made to sell some machinery to another company, subject to approval from the Registrar of Newspapers. The key issue was whether the sale was concluded on the delivery date or after obtaining the Registrar's sanction. The Revenue argued for the earlier date to treat the asset as short-term, while the assessee contended the sale was completed only after obtaining the required permission. The Appellate Tribunal sided with the assessee, emphasizing that the sale was contingent upon the Registrar's approval, and the consideration was paid later. The Revenue relied on legal precedents to argue that title passes upon delivery of goods. However, the court clarified that passing of title depends on the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the circumstances and agreements. The court highlighted that the intention to pass title was evident only after the Registrar's approval, as per the agreement and subsequent actions of the assessee. The court referred to legal principles from cases like CIT v. Bhurangya Coal Co. and Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT to emphasize that the passing of title depends on the intention of the parties rather than a universal rule. The Sale of Goods Act was cited to underscore that the crucial test is the parties' intention regarding the transfer of property. In this case, the agreement and subsequent actions indicated that the sale was completed only after obtaining the necessary permission, and the consideration was fixed later, supporting the assessee's position. The court concluded that the sale was finalized after obtaining the Registrar's sanction, making the asset a long-term capital asset. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the assessee, and the reference was answered accordingly. The court did not delve into the alternative contention regarding the calculation of the 36-month period, as the main issue was resolved based on the date of sale as per the agreement and circumstances.
|
