1979 (1) TMI 57 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of gains arising from the transfer of route permits under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966-67.

Analysis:

The case involved a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) engaged in the business of bus transport. The primary issue was whether the gains from the sale of buses, including route permits, were taxable under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) calculated the profit assessable under section 41(2) and further determined capital gains from the sale of buses, including route permits. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the taxability of gains arising from the transfer of route permits as "property" under section 45, emphasizing the cost of acquisition incurred in obtaining the permits.

The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on the argument that the route permits were not self-generating assets like goodwill, as established in previous case law. The court distinguished the present case from the precedent, emphasizing that route permits were acquired through applications and legal proceedings, involving costs of acquisition. The court highlighted the need to establish the cost of acquisition for route permits to determine capital gains tax liability, emphasizing that even if actual costs were not provided, an estimate must be made by tax authorities.

The court directed a fresh assessment, similar to a prior case, to determine the cost of acquisition for each bus sold, considering the history of ownership and depreciation claimed. The court stressed the importance of evaluating the cost of acquisition based on available evidence to calculate the taxable gains accurately. Ultimately, the court returned the reference unanswered, instructing a reevaluation of the case in light of all facts and contentions, without awarding costs.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the taxability of gains from the transfer of route permits, emphasizing the necessity of determining the cost of acquisition for accurate assessment of capital gains tax liability. The court highlighted the distinction between self-generating assets and acquired permits, directing a comprehensive reevaluation of the case to establish the actual cost of acquisition for route permits and ensure a fair assessment of taxable gains.