9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern. As rightly noticed by the CIT (appeal) that the entire running business with all assets and liabilities having been sold in one go by the respondent-assessee, it was a slump sale of a “long-term capital asset”. It was, therefore, required to be taxed accordingly. Our view finds support with the law laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. [1997 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court]. - Civil Appeal No. 4399 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer, the case of the assessee was covered under Section 50 (2) of the Act because it was in the nature of short term capital gain as specified in Section 50 (2) of the Act and hence did not fall under Section 48 (2) of the Act as claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accordingly reworked the claim of the deduction treating the same to be falling under Section 50 (2) of the Act and framed the assessment order. 6) The assessee, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the CIT (appeals). By order dated 06.10.1995, the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the assessee s appeal in so far as it related to the issue of deduction. He held that when it is an undisputed fact that the assessee has sold their entire running business in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act. It is against this order the Revenue felt aggrieved and carried the matter to this Court in appeal by way of special leave. 9) Heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Inder Paul Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. 10) Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, no fault can be found in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the CIT (appeal) in his order which, in our view, was rightly upheld by the Tribunal and then by the High Court calling no interference by this Court in this appeal. 11) In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
