9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Transfer of import license and capital gains tax liability, Sale of goodwill and capital gains tax liability Analysis: The case involved a limited company that transferred its business of manufacturing art silk, including import licenses, to another firm. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) taxed the profit made by the new firm from importing yarn as short-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee-company. Additionally, the ITO taxed the value of goodwill as long-term capital gains. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the addition but reduced the amounts. The Tribunal, however, held that the quota rights and goodwill could not be treated as capital assets, citing precedents from different High Courts. Regarding the transfer of import licenses, the Tribunal's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty. The Court emphasized that an asset must have a cost of acquisition to be subject to capital gains tax. Since import licenses were not acquired for a price but granted based on compliance with government conditions, they could not be considered assets for capital gains. The Court also referred to a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court, stating that there would be no liability to capital gains tax on the sale of an import entitlement certificate. Concerning the sale of goodwill, the Court applied the same principle from the Srinivasa Setty case, stating that goodwill, being a self-generating asset, could not have its cost of acquisition computed in monetary terms. Therefore, the sale of goodwill could not give rise to any capital gains. In conclusion, the Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee and against the Department. The Court held that the transfer of import licenses and the sale of goodwill did not attract capital gains tax liability. The applicant was directed to pay the costs of the reference.
|
