Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2006 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (6) TMI 136 - AT - Income TaxSlump Sale - computation of net worth on slump sale - Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - interest received by the assessee on refund received from Income Tax Department for the year under consideration is chargeable to tax in this year or not - Disallowance being payments made to Clubs - Disallowance being payments to various clubs by way of reimbursement - Deletion of two additions in respect of refund of income tax and interest in the case of foreign concern - deletion of disallowance being expenditure incurred on acquiring bus as well as education expenses in respect of employees' children. Slump Sale - transfer of cement division by way of slump sale - Computation of capital gains - whether "net worth" so computed can be in negative so as to increase the sale consideration by such negative figure of "net worth" for computing capital gain? - HELD THAT:- he answer is in negative for the reasons given hereafter. Firstly, capital gain is always a portion of sale consideration and, therefore, portion can never be higher than the whole. Gain would arise only where sale consideration is more than the cost. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that capital gain would be more than the sale consideration. No man of prudence can ever think of capital gain higher than the sale consideration. Capital gain can either be excess of sale consideration over the cost or "nil" if sale consideration is equal to cost. Where the cost is more than sale consideration, it would be a case of loss. No other situation can be visualized. Therefore, capital gain can never be more than the sale consideration. Secondly, the Legislature has used the expression "net worth" which by deeming fiction is to be considered as cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48. Section 48 of the Act provides for deduction of cost of acquisition/improvement from the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital assets. The cost of a property, as per dictionary meaning, means the price paid by a buyer to the seller. Therefore, it must be a positive figure. Thirdly, had the Legislature also intended negative cost of acquisition, it would have used the words "by deducting from or adding to, as the case may be" in section 48 of the Act instead of the words "by deducting from" actually used by it. The language used by Legislature in section 48, thus, itself shows that it never intended negative cost of acquisition. Since "net worth" in section 50B is deemed to be the cost of acquisition as per sub-section (2) thereof, it must also have been intended by the Legislature in positive. Therefore, the expression "reduced by" used by the Legislature in Explanation 1 to section 50B has been used in the sense that net worth should be arrived at positive figure or at best be reduced to "Nil". Consequently, where the liabilities are more, then the value of assets as computed under section 50B, the net worth would be considered as "Nil". In the present case, the value of assets as per books of account is much more than the value of liabilities. No prudent person would have acquired the unit unless the value of assets or benefits attached to the division is more than the liability - The division was purchased since value of assets was more than the liabilities. It is because of written down value of assets under section 43(6)(c) of the Act, that value of depreciable assets had to be computed at substantially low figure which resulted in the value of assets lesser than liabilities but on that account net worth cannot be reduced below the "Nil" account since such process would be contrary to the scheme of the section itself - "net worth" of the cement division would be taken as "Nil" which shall be deemed to be the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48 of the Act. Whether the amount of consideration received by the assessee should be increased by the amount of liabilities of the cement division for ascertaining the full value of consideration in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ATTILI N. RAO [2001 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT]? - HELD THAT:- If liability is to be added to the sale consideration then, the same has also to be excluded from the computation of "net worth" since otherwise it would amount to double jeopardy. Such process would amount to re-writing of the provisions of section 50B which is not permissible in law since such process is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature. Therefore, considering the scheme of section 50B, the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be applied to the present case. The order of the Learned CIT (Appeals) is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to assess the capital gain at Rs. 75.98 crores. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 21,06,849 under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra since covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. v. CIT [1965 (12) TMI 22 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that interest on borrowed funds would be allowed irrespective of the fact whether used for day-to-day running of the business or for acquisition of business assets. Both the authorities have not given any specific reason for not following this judgment. The claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed merely on the ground that it has been capitalised in the books of account. Entries in the books of account are not relevant for rejecting the claim of the assessee if it is otherwise allowable. Whether interest received by the assessee on refund received from Income Tax Department for the year under consideration is chargeable to tax in this year or not? - HELD THAT:- The Learned Counsel for the assessee has fairly stated that this issue is covered against him by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Avada Trading Co. (P.) Ltd., [2006 (1) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that interest accrues in the year in which interest on refund is received by the assessee. Therefore, following the said judgment, we decide the issue against the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition, if any, on the basis of income offered by the assessee in subsequent years. Disallowance of Rs. 1,66,329 being payments made to Clubs - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the appeal of the assessee on this issue in absence of any details - the order of the Learned CIT(A) is modified and the Assessing Officer is directed to work out the disallowance considering the above expenditures as entertain expenditure. Disallowance of Rs. 10,61,528 being payments to various clubs by way of reimbursement - HELD THAT:- The provisions of section 40A(9) of the Act provides that no deduction shall be allowed in respect of any sum paid by the assessee as an employee towards the set-up or formation of or as a contribution to any fund, trust, company, association of persons, body of individuals, society, or other institution for any purpose, except covered by section 36(1)(iv/v). There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that such payments were made towards the purposes mentioned in sub-section (9) of section 40A - the provisions of section 40A(9) are not applicable and, therefore, no disallowance was justified. The order of the Learned CIT(A) is, therefore, set aside on this issue and the disallowance sustained by him is hereby deleted. Disallowance of interest of Rs. 6,34,49,000 on the ground that such interest on borrowings were relatable to tax free dividend income - HELD THAT:- The assessee has specifically contended before the Assessing Officer that no borrowed funds were utilised in such investments and further no dividend has been received on investment made during the year. This contention remains uncontroverted. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of MARUTI UDYOG LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2004 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT DELHI-A] that onus is on the Department to prove that any expenditure was incurred for earning tax free income. The entire books of account were before the Assessing Officer who has not brought any material on record to prove that any interest was paid for earning tax free income under section 10(33). Therefore, following the said decision, the disallowance sustained by the Learned CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Deletion of two additions of Rs. 43,500 in respect of refund of income tax and interest in the case of foreign concern - deletion of disallowance of Rs. 5,76,025 being expenditure incurred on acquiring bus as well as education expenses in respect of employees' children - HELD THAT:- The said appeals are still pending. In these circumstances, both the parties are agreed that the matter may be remitted to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the final verdict of the Tribunal in the appeals relating to the earlier years. In view of the same, we set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) on these two issues and remit the matters to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal pertaining to the earlier years. The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed while the appeal of the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
|