9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1281 - AT - Income TaxTreatment to payment made to retiring partners as transfer of capital assets by way of distribution & brining the same to tax as short-term-capital gains in the hands of assessee firm - Held that - We hold that there is no transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital asset at the time of making the payments to the retiring partners and therefore, no capital gain is chargeable to tax in hands of the assessee firm. Accordingly, order of the CIT(A) is set aside and addition made stands deleted. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER Versus GURUNATH TALKIES 2009 (7) TMI 738 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of payment made to retiring partners as transfer of capital assets. 2. Applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Interpretation of "otherwise" in the context of Section 45(4). 4. Validity of creation of goodwill as a capital asset. 5. Relevance of the decisions of the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Payment Made to Retiring Partners as Transfer of Capital Assets: The assessee firm, engaged in manufacturing tube light fittings and other lighting accessories, reconstituted its partnership on 15.01.2010, admitting three new partners and changing the profit-sharing ratio. Subsequently, on 16.01.2010, the original two partners retired, and the firm created a "Goodwill" asset amounting to Rs. 3,75,08,859/-, distributed among the retiring partners. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this payment as a distribution of capital assets taxable as short-term capital gains under Section 45(4). 2. Applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act: The AO contended that the payment to retiring partners constituted a transfer of capital assets on the firm's dissolution, invoking Section 45(4). The assessee argued that Section 45(4) was inapplicable as there was no dissolution, only a reconstitution. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, asserting that the rights and interests in the firm's assets were transferred to new partners, constituting a transfer of capital assets under Section 2(47) read with clauses (b)(v) and (vi). 3. Interpretation of "Otherwise" in the Context of Section 45(4): The AO and CIT(A) relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates, which interpreted "otherwise" in Section 45(4) to include transfers of assets to retiring partners even without dissolution. However, the Karnataka High Court's Full Bench in CIT vs. Dynamic Enterprises distinguished this interpretation, holding that Section 45(4) applies only when there is an actual transfer of capital assets resulting in the firm ceasing to have any interest in the asset. 4. Validity of Creation of Goodwill as a Capital Asset: The CIT(A) deemed the creation of goodwill a "colourable device" to camouflage the transaction, referencing the principle from McDowell & Co. Ltd. However, the Tribunal found that the goodwill creation was a mode of payment to retiring partners without transferring any tangible or intangible assets out of the firm's books. 5. Relevance of the Decisions of the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court: The Tribunal considered the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dynamic Enterprises, which clarified that Section 45(4) requires an actual transfer of capital assets resulting in the firm losing interest in the asset. The Tribunal noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in A.N. Naik Associates was factually distinguishable and did not apply to the present case. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the conditions for invoking Section 45(4) were not met, as there was no dissolution or distribution of capital assets, and no transfer of assets occurred. The creation of goodwill was merely a method of paying retiring partners without transferring any assets. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deleted, and the appeal was allowed. Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order pronounced in the open court on 2nd November 2015.
|
