TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Merely because the assessee has given split up figures and received the consideration from the purchaser, it would not take the goods out of slump sale - Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.364/2007 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2013 - N Kumar And Rathnakala, JJ. For the Appellants : Shri.K V Aravind Shri N Padmabhushan, Advs. For the Respondents : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, Adv. For M/s K R Prasad, Adv. JUDGEMENT:- This appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the sale consideration of a going concern cannot be subjected to tax under the capital gain. 2. The assessee was one of the companies under the Nutrine Group. The assessee is the manufacturer of confectionery items only whereas M/s. Nutr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the consideration received for the transfer of trade marks, patent rights, logo etc. by the assessee from M/s. Sara Lee Bakery India (P) Ltd., cannot be his long term capital gains sustainable under Section 65 of the Act? 4. The Apex Court in the case of PNB Finance Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in (2008) 307 ITR 75(SC) has held as under: 17. As regards applicability of Section 45 is concerned, three tests are required to be applied. In this case, Section 45 applies. There is no dispute on that point. The first test is that the charging section and the computation provisions are inextricably linked. The charging section and the computation provisions together con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in terms of appreciation of capital value of that asset. In the said judgment, this Court held that the asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of Section 45. It is further held that, the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated Code and when in a case the computation provisions cannot apply, such a case would not fall within Section 45. In the present case, the Banking Undertaking, inter alia, included intangible assets like, goodwill, tenancy rights, man power and value of banking licence. On facts, we find that item-wise earmarking was not possible. On facts, we find that the compensation (sale consideration) of Rs. 10.20 crores was not allocable item- wise as was the case in Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
