9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Whether the amount received by the assessee on transfer of practice of Chartered Accountancy is exigible to tax? Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bombay-E involved the assessment year 1987-88 and centered around the question of taxability of an amount of Rs. 2,01,000 received by the assessee on transferring their practice of Chartered Accountancy to another firm. The assessee, due to old age, decided to transfer the practice to M/s. C.R. Bhansali & Associates, Chartered Accountants. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India canceled the certificate of practice of the assessee with effect from 1st April, 1987. The primary contention of the assessee was that the consideration received was for relinquishing certain rights, and as the acquisition cost was 'nil', it should not be subjected to tax, relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294 (SC). The Departmental Representative argued that the amount received was for introducing clients to the new firm, and it constituted a revenue receipt, hence taxable. The Tribunal examined the facts and submissions, emphasizing that the reputation of the assessee facilitated the transfer of clients to the new firm. The Tribunal noted that the goodwill generated by the assessee's 28 years of practice played a crucial role in advising clients to approach the new firm. The concept of 'goodwill' as a capital asset was discussed, emphasizing that reputation/goodwill falls under the ambit of 'capital asset' and can be transferred within the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal further analyzed that the transfer of practice, along with the reputation, was akin to the transfer of goodwill. The terms of the transfer specified that the practice of the assessee would be taken over by the new firm, and the assessee would not undertake any work personally post-transfer. The Tribunal considered the assets and liabilities involved in the transfer, noting that the transfer of the entire balance sheet was not necessary for transferring the practice with goodwill. The dominant intent behind the transfer, as evidenced by subsequent conduct, was crucial in determining the taxability of the amount received. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the consideration of Rs. 2,01,000 was received on account of the reputation that facilitated the transfer of clients, and as there was no cost of acquisition for the goodwill generated during the 28 years of practice, the amount was not subject to capital gains tax. Citing the decision in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, ruling in favor of the assessee and holding the amount received as non-taxable.
|
