2019 (4) TMI 60

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t under an arrangement with the vendor paid a part of it to the vendor and the other part to liquidate the workman’s liability, then it can be clearly demonstrated that the entire consideration was a capital expenditure for acquisition of a capital asset. On the other hand, if it is shown that the consideration for purchase of the plant, machinery etc. was much less than the whole consideration and that payment of the statutory dues of the workman was a distinct consideration forming the other part of the whole consideration, the picture would be completely different and similar to Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata versus Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. [2012 (1) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.] For proper application of law, facts are very e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d such liabilities be on or after the date of take over shall on account of and payable by the Purchaser. 7. The Vendor has represented to the Purchaser that a sum of ₹ 3.90 crores is due and payable on account of outstanding dues towards workers wages, salaries, gratuity, bonus and STL upto 15th March, 1994. The Purchaser shall be entitled to take inspection of the Books of Accounts of the said Company for the purpose of verification of such statements made by the Vendor. 9. Out of the balance consideration sum of ₹ 3,90,00,000/- the purchaser shall retain the said sum ₹ 3,90,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of outstanding wages and other dues of the workmen of the said jute mill as quantified in Clause 7 hereina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uch matters, Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata versus Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. reported in (2007) 1 SCC 571, the Supreme Court had taken the obligation of the purchaser for payment of gratuity liability of the vendor as a term of a distinct agreement from that involving purchase of plant and machinery. Hence, the claim for depreciation claimed by the assessee on that account was not allowed. Now, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue very strongly contends that the Court should follow the Supreme Court decision and dismiss the appeal. We are of the opinion that the facts of this case have not been properly determined by the adjudicating authority below, on the basis of the said agreement by which the undertaking plant, ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X