9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 25,000 received by the assessee for giving up a portion of his share in the goodwill of the firm constitutes capital gains subject to tax. 2. The nature and taxability of goodwill as a self-generated asset. 3. The applicability of various judicial precedents to the present case. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the sum of Rs. 25,000 received by the assessee for giving up a portion of his share in the goodwill of the firm constitutes capital gains subject to tax: The assessee, a chartered accountant, was a partner in a firm where he initially held a 75% share in the profits, which was later reduced to 50%. In consideration of giving up a portion of his share in the goodwill of the firm, the assessee received Rs. 25,000 from the other two partners. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) argued that this amount constituted a transfer of a long-term asset and should be taxed under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) and the Tribunal held that the amount received was for the relinquishment of a portion of the assessee's share in the goodwill, a self-generating asset, and thus no capital gains arose from this transfer. 2. The nature and taxability of goodwill as a self-generated asset: The judgment emphasized that goodwill is a self-generating asset with no cost of acquisition. Goodwill, as defined under section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, is part of the property of the firm and includes benefits arising from the firm's reputation and connections. The court noted that goodwill is inherently fluctuating and cannot be precisely valued at its inception. Given its nature, the court held that goodwill is a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, but since it has no cost of acquisition, no capital gains tax could be levied on the amount received for its transfer. 3. The applicability of various judicial precedents to the present case: The court reviewed several precedents to support its decision: - Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa: The Supreme Court held that a partner's interest in the partnership assets, including goodwill, is movable property and can be redistributed among partners without requiring registration of the transfer. - Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT: The Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of assets upon the dissolution of a firm does not constitute a transfer of assets under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act. - Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT: The Supreme Court held that bringing personal assets into a partnership firm constitutes a transfer of capital assets, but this case was distinguished as it dealt with the transfer of personal assets, not the redistribution of partnership assets. - CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty: The Supreme Court concluded that the transfer of goodwill, a self-generated asset with no cost of acquisition, does not give rise to capital gains for tax purposes. The court also addressed the Revenue's reliance on decisions under the Gift-tax Act, such as CGT v. V. A. M. Ayya Nadar and CGT v. P. Gheevarghese, noting that these cases involved a broader definition of "gift" and were not directly applicable to the issue of capital gains under the Income-tax Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that the sum of Rs. 25,000 received by the assessee for relinquishing a portion of his share in the goodwill of the firm did not constitute capital gains subject to tax. The Tribunal's decision to delete the sum from taxable capital gains was affirmed, and the question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made.
|
