9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 84(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the formation of industrial undertakings. 2. Direction by the Tribunal for subsequent years regarding the assessment of benefits under Section 84. Detailed Analysis: The case involved N. Guru Investment Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta, claiming benefits under Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as a newly established industrial undertaking. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially denied the benefits, stating that the assessee was formed by the reconstruction of an existing business, with previous business owners holding substantial shares. However, the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) ruled that the business started in 1961, making the assessee eligible for benefits under Section 84 if other conditions were met, rejecting the contention of no reconstruction. The Tribunal later found that the assessee had taken over an existing business with all its rights, assets, and liabilities, concluding that it was not a reconstruction but a sale transaction. The Tribunal directed the ITO to consider future assessments without assuming reconstruction had occurred. The questions referred to the High Court were whether the industrial undertaking of the assessee was formed by the reconstruction of an existing business and if the Tribunal was correct in directing the ITO to proceed on the basis of no reconstruction in subsequent years. The High Court analyzed Section 84(2)(i) and upheld the Tribunal's finding that the transaction did not amount to reconstruction, as it was a sale of the business. The revenue's attempt to argue based on Section 84(2)(ii) was dismissed as it was not raised before the Tribunal. Question 1 was answered in favor of the assessee. Regarding Question 2, the counsel for the revenue decided not to press for an answer due to the Tribunal's observations on future assessments under Section 84. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the reference, affirming the Tribunal's decision on the lack of reconstruction and declining to answer Question 2. Costs were not awarded in this matter. Justice Bimal Chandra Basak agreed with the judgment delivered by Justice Dipak Kumar Sen.
|
