9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of capital gains for a company in liquidation. 2. Apportionment of sale consideration between accounting years. 3. Set off of unabsorbed loss against capital gains. 4. Determination of the cost of land for computing capital gains. 5. Disallowance of auditor's fees and fees paid to Government counsel. 6. Tax liability of the income of the liquidator. Analysis: 1. Assessment of Capital Gains for a Company in Liquidation: The appeal pertains to the assessment of capital gains for a company in liquidation for the assessment year 1988-89. The company's movable and immovable properties were sold to another entity as per the orders of the High Court. The dispute arose regarding the apportionment of the sale consideration between the relevant accounting years. The Assessing Officer initially split the sale consideration between two years, but the CIT(A) held that it was a composite sale and the capital gains should be assessed in the year when all assets were handed over, i.e., in the assessment year 1988-89. 2. Apportionment of Sale Consideration Between Accounting Years: The key issue was the apportionment of the sale consideration between the accounting years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of assessing the capital gains in the year when all assets were handed over to the buyer, i.e., in the assessment year 1988-89. This decision was based on the fact that the entire sale consideration was received during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89. 3. Set Off of Unabsorbed Loss Against Capital Gains: The assessee claimed for the set off of unabsorbed loss against the capital gains assessed. The CIT(A) rejected this claim, citing various judicial precedents. However, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation against the profits arising from the sale of assets, following a previous decision in a similar case. 4. Determination of the Cost of Land for Computing Capital Gains: There was a discrepancy in the determination of the cost of land for computing capital gains. While the Assessing Officer used the book value of the land, the assessee contended that the market value of the land as on 1st April, 1974, should be considered. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the market value of the land as the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains. 5. Disallowance of Auditor's Fees and Fees Paid to Government Counsel: Certain expenditures, including remuneration paid to auditors and fees paid to Government counsel, were disallowed by the Assessing Officer, and this disallowance was confirmed. The Tribunal sustained this disallowance based on relevant legal decisions. 6. Tax Liability of the Income of the Liquidator: The issue of tax liability concerning the income of the liquidator was also raised. The assessee contended that the income of the company in liquidation is not liable to income tax, relying on a specific decision. However, the Tribunal upheld that the company's income in liquidation is liable to tax, differing from the assessee's argument. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, addressing various issues related to the assessment of capital gains, apportionment of sale consideration, set off of unabsorbed loss, determination of land cost, disallowance of certain expenditures, and the tax liability of the income of the liquidator.
|
