9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the old section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to relief for industrial undertakings. 2. Determination of whether a lease constitutes a transfer within the meaning of the relevant clause. 3. Application of the Explanation to section 84 regarding the transfer of assets to a new business. 4. Compliance with conditions for relief under section 84 by the respondent-company. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay involved the interpretation of the old section 84 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which provided relief for industrial undertakings. The key issue was whether the respondent-company was entitled to relief under the old section 84, which had been replaced by section 80J. The dispute arose due to the location of the respondent-company's factory in a building leased from another company. The conditions for relief under section 84 required that the industrial undertaking should not be formed by the transfer of a building previously used for any purpose. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially held that this condition was not fulfilled, as the value of the leased building exceeded the prescribed limit. However, the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) and the Tribunal later considered that a lease did not constitute a transfer within the meaning of the clause, thereby allowing the respondent-company to claim relief. The primary question before the court was whether the lease granted to the respondent-company constituted a transfer within the meaning of the relevant clause of section 84(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court referred to previous decisions by a Division Bench of the High Court, which held that the term "transfer" should not be limited to the full rights of ownership but could also include the transfer of limited rights or interests, such as through a lease. The court further emphasized that a building previously used for business by a third party could still qualify as a transfer for the purposes of the Act. The court also highlighted the importance of determining whether the Explanation to section 84 applied to the case of the respondent-company, as it could impact the eligibility for relief under the section. However, the Tribunal had not provided a definitive ruling on this aspect, leaving it unresolved. The court directed the Tribunal to consider these points and make a decision in accordance with the clarification provided in the judgment. Ultimately, the court reframed the initial question to focus on the specific controversy regarding the lease and held that the lease did amount to a transfer within the meaning of the relevant clause. The court emphasized that compliance with all conditions under section 84 was essential for the respondent-company to claim relief. The judgment concluded by instructing the Tribunal to address the outstanding issues and make a decision based on the clarified legal principles, without awarding costs for the reference.
|
