Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (7) TMI 608 - AT - Income TaxCertain transactions amounting to transfer u/s 47 - Chargeability to tax of the capital gain on transfer as going concern of TFD division of the assessee to ITEL - transfer Schemes is demerger or not - Slump sale u/s 50B or not - business of providing solutions in the field of voice communications and manufacture of telephone instruments, EPBAX systems etc. - assessee transferred the TFD to ITEL Industries Private Limited (ITEL) - scheme of arrangement between the assessee and ITEL for the transfer of the TFD to ITEL was approved by the Bombay High Court. No dispute that the value of the assets which was taken over by ITEL was less than the liabilities that were taken over by ITEL. The assessee had shown this amount as ‘capital reserve in it’s balance sheet. Five issues arise for consideration regarding the chargeability to tax of the capital gain on transfer of TFD division of the assessee to ITEL. Whether the transfer of TFD division by the assessee to ITEL could be termed as a demerger within the meaning of section 2(19AA) of the Act and consequently capital gain, if any, on such transfer is not chargeable to tax in view of the provisions of section 47(vib) of the Act? - HELD THAT:- All the conditions laid down in section 2(19AA) have to be satisfied in a case to be called a demerger for the purpose of section 47(vib) of the Act. As rightly contended by learned DR for the revenue, the Legislature is deemed to have foreseen all possible contingencies and yet has thought it fit to impose the above conditions for qualifying as a demerger for the purpose of section 47(vib) - There cannot be any presumption regarding omission by the Legislature to provide for a situation where the consideration is not in the form of allotment of shares in the resulting company to the shareholders of the demerged company. A matter which should have been, but has not been provided for in a statute cannot be supplied. The intention of the Legislature in such cases is not to confer the benefit of exemption to an assessee u/s 47(vib) of the Act - All the conditions laid down in section 2(19AA) have to be satisfied in a case to be called a demerger for the purpose of section 47(vib) of the Act. We therefore, reject the plea on behalf of the assessee in this regard and hold that the transfer in the present case cannot be regarded as a ‘demerger’ within the meaning of section 2(19AA) of the Act. The answer to the first issue is, therefore, in the negative. Whether the transaction in question can be said to be slump sale within the meaning of section 2(42C) of the Act attracting the provisions of section 50B of the Act - HELD THAT:- It is clear that, it is only a transfer as a result of sale that can be construed as a slump sale. Therefore, any transfer of an undertaking otherwise then as a result of sale will not qualify as a slump sale. The question whether transfer of the property consequent to amalgamation could be construed as a sale or not has been considered in the case of Sadanand S. Varde [2000 (6) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the question arose before Hon’ble Court in the context of the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act under which, the Government had a right of pre-emptive purchase of property. For the purpose of Chapter XX-C of the Act, expression ‘transfer’ means transfer by way of sale or exchange or lease for a term of not less than 12 years - Therefore, we are of the view that the transfer of TFD by the assessee to ITEL consequent to scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court cannot said to be a sale of undertaking by the assessee. Consequently, the transfer could not be said to be as a result of sale and therefore the provisions of section 2(42C) of the Act did not apply. The provisions of section 50B were also not therefore applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case - The answer to this issue, is in negative. Whether the transfer of TFD by the assessee to ITEL results in capital gain u/s 45 of the Act; but nevertheless cannot be brought to tax because of impossibility of computing capital gains u/s 48 of the Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, what was transferred by the assessee was the TFD undertaking as a whole. It is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. The process by which, this undertaking was transferred to ITEL is transfer of capital asset. With regard to other ingredients, which is required for levy of capital gains namely profits or gains arising from the transfer of the undertaking, no part of consideration was indicated against different and definite items having regard to their valuation on the date of transfer - There is no basis for even apportioning any consideration for various assets comprised in the transfer. Since, individual items of capital assets having not been transferred the aggregate of individual assets in the form of an undertaking was a capital asset which was transferred. The transfer being one of the going concerns, it is not possible to ascertain the profit or gain from transfer of undertaking. Cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement of the undertaking cannot be ascertained. It, therefore, becomes difficult to apply computation under provisions of section 48 - If the cost of acquisition and/or the date of acquisition of the asset cannot be determined, then it cannot be brought within the purview of section 45 for levy and computation of capital gains. Looking to the nature and character of the capital asset being the going concern, consideration realized by the assessee would be outside the purview of capital gains u/s 45 - We hold that computation provisions fail in the present case and consequently there can be no capital gain that could be brought to tax. In view of our decision as the issue as formulated above, is not being taken up for consideration. We may mention that elaborate arguments have been advanced by both parties on this issue also. Taxability of lease income - under head ‘income from other sources’ or ‘income from business’ - business of leasing - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the transaction in question is only a method of selling the assessee’s product. Arrangement was only to provide the finance to the customers to enable buyers to buy the assessee’s product. Such arrangement in the business world of today is directed only towards increasing profitability of the assessee. It has been done in systematic and organized method - AO has accepted first part of the transaction as business transaction and treated the second part as leasing transaction and not business transaction. This approach of the AO was not correct in law. The ld CIT(A) while deciding similar issue in AY 2001-02 has rightly approached the issue. Therefore, we direct that the income in question has to be treated as income from business. Second ground of appeal is allowed. Disallowance on obsolete stock written off - whether the write off of stock as obsolete has to be accepted or not - HELD THAT:- The inventory of work-in-progress written off as obsolete has also been furnished before us. Perusal of the same reveals that complete details and break up of items and value has been furnished by the assessee before the AO. AO and learned CIT(A) have proceeded on the basis that evidence regarding the stock having become obsolete has not been produced and therefore the claim of the assessee should be rejected. No dispute that the method followed by the assessee was the same as in the past - In such circumstances, the burden to show that the write off of obsolete stock was not bona fide is on the revenue as held by the Mumbai Bench of the ITAT, in the case of Consolidated Pneumatic Tool Co. (India) Ltd.[1985 (10) TMI 122 - ITAT BOMBAY-E] where the facts were identical to the case of the assessee - the AO in the present case without pointing out as to how the write off in question was not correct or bona fide, when all facts and details were placed before him, could not have made the impugned addition. We, therefore, direct that the addition made in this regard be deleted. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. Computation of income - Non-compete payment - claim of the assessee was not allowed in the relevant assessment year. Without prejudice to the claim that the consideration paid to NELCO must be allowed as deduction in the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee submitted that the period of the agreement was 5 years - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that the additional ground has to be admitted for adjudication as the claim was made in the return of income filed by the assessee. We were informed that the claim for deduction of the entire sum is still pending adjudication in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the circumstances, we admit the additional ground for adjudication and remand the matter to learned CIT(A) for deciding the issue in accordance with law after taking into consideration the decision if any, in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.
|