9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 12B(2) of the Act ? " The facts appear in the statement of the case. The respondent is the assessee-firm which acted as the managing agents of Messrs. India United Mills Ltd. The assessment year in question is 1957-58, the financial year being S.Y. 2012 Maru (November, 1955, to October, 1956). Prior to May 23, 1955, the assessee-firm earned a very large amount of commission from the above mills company. On May, 23, 1955, out of the Commission earned, the assessee-firm purchased 63,550 ordinary shares and 6,100 deferred shares of the mills company for the aggregate price of Rs. 7,15,399. On April 26, 1956, all the shares purchased were transferred to each of the partners of the assessee-firm in the proportion of each partner's shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts appellate order, dated August 10, 1962, held in favour of the assessee-firm that a transfer was not involved in the transaction mentioned above as required under the provisions of section 12B(2). For that reason, the Appellate Tribunal directed that the above sum of Rs. 87,681 treated as capital gains be deleted from the income of the assessee. In connection with the above transaction, the questions mentioned above have been referred to us for decision. To appreciate the contentions made by Mr. Joshi for the applicant (Income-tax Commissioner), it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of section 12B, which runs as follows : " 12B. Capital gains.-(1) The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital gains' in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnected with the assessee-firm. The findings to the contrary made by the Appellate Tribunal should be set aside. (2) Since at the date of the transaction on April 26, 1956, the market value of the shares was in excess of the cost price by Rs. 87,681, the transaction involved capital gains. The direct result of this fact was that the assessee-firm effected the transaction with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee-firm under section 12B. In developing his second contention, Mr. Joshi repeatedly emphasised that the intention in effecting the transaction could justifiably be inferred by looking at the prevalent market value of the capital asset transferred at the date of the transaction. His emphatic submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to be applied to the transaction with full rigour and the submission made by Mr. Kaka as mentioned above was unjustified and untenable. Now, it is quite clear that having regard to the contents of the proviso quoted above, in respect of capital assets transferred by the assessee to a person directly or indirectly connected with the assessee, capital gains tax would be payable, i.e., the provisions in section 12B would be applicable, in the event of its being proved that the transaction was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under section 12B. But Mr. Kaka is right in his submission that to formulate an intention and/or object of avoidance or reduction of the liability under section 12B, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
