9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (2) TMI 327 - HC - Income TaxSlump sale A.Y. 1994-95 Tribunal held non-applicability of capital gains in view of the fact that the IMFL business has been transferred as going concern and therefore a slump sale Revenue contesting the same Held that - In the present case, the position as it existed prior to the insertion of the provisions of Section 50B by the Finance Act of 1999 is dealt with. Neither authorities nor Tribunal were in dispute that transfer of the entire business as a going concern was involved. The Tribunal has corrected the view taken by the authorities by holding that it was not possible to attribute the consideration which was paid, towards the individual assets which form a component part of the transfer of the business hence not possible to compute any chargeable capital gain on the sale of the undertaking as a going concern. View of Tribunal is thereby affirmed. See PNB Finance Ltd vs CIT (2008 - TMI - 31364 Supreme Court) Decided against the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the transfer of the IMFL business as a going concern constitutes a slump sale. 2. Whether the capital gains arising from the transfer are chargeable under the head of capital gains. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the transfer of the IMFL business as a going concern constitutes a slump sale: The assessee, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of liquor, entered into an agreement on 24 March 1994 to sell its IMFL business to International Distillers (India) Pvt. Ltd. as a going concern. The business included all assets and liabilities, and the transfer was made on an "as is where is" basis. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the transfer was a slump sale and calculated the difference between the sale price of Rs.10.38 Crores and the written-down value of Rs.3.48 Crores, determining a profit of Rs.6.90 Crores chargeable under capital gains. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, stating that the lump sum consideration was based on the valuation of individual assets. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the transfer was a slump sale, relying on the judgment in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, which distinguished between a slump sale and an itemized sale. The Tribunal held that the entire business was transferred as a going concern for a lump sum consideration without separate valuation of assets, making it a slump sale. This position was supported by the agreement, which included various tangible and intangible assets without itemized valuation. 2. Whether the capital gains arising from the transfer are chargeable under the head of capital gains: The AO and the Commissioner (Appeals) calculated capital gains based on the difference between the sale price and the written-down value of assets. However, the Tribunal found that the agreement did not contain such a computation and that the sale consideration was not attributable to individual assets. The Tribunal concluded that it was impossible to ascertain the cost of the capital asset (the IMFL business) and, therefore, to compute any chargeable capital gain. The Revenue argued that the case should be remanded to the AO for determination of capital gains, citing the Premier Automobiles case. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the transfer involved both tangible and intangible assets, making itemized allocation impossible. The Supreme Court's decision in PNB Finance Ltd. Vs. CIT was cited, which held that when computation provisions cannot apply, the case would not fall within Section 45 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's view was that the transaction involved a slump sale, and the cost of intangibles could not be determined, aligning with the Supreme Court's ruling. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the transfer was a slump sale and that it was impossible to attribute the sale consideration to individual assets. The Court noted that prior to the insertion of Section 50B, the computation provisions for capital gains would break down in such cases. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's contention for a remand and disposed of the appeal, answering the question of law in the affirmative.
|
