TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a depreciable asset. Section 50 deals only with transfer of depreciable assets. Once the land forms part of the assets of the undertaking, and the transfer is of the entire undertaking as a whole, it is not possible to bifurcate the sale consideration to a particular asset. – Hence revenue’s appeal is dismissed - - - - - Dated:- 20-6-2005 - Judge(s) : MARKANDEY KATJU., F. M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Markandey Katju C.J.- This income-tax appeal has been filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore, against the impugned order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "B" Bench, dated September 12, 2002. The substantial questions of law raised in this appeal are as follows ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missed by the Tribunal, and against that order, the Department has filed this appeal under section 260A of the Act. The Assessing Officer had found that the assessee had sold his bakery including the land, building and machinery for a total cost of Rs. 25,50,555. In the original return, the assessee claimed that the gains arising out of the sale of the land were long-term capital gains which it showed at Rs. 5,58,917, and gains arising out of sale of building, machinery and furniture as short-term capital gain which it showed at Rs. 10,13,056. However, thereafter, he filed revised returns claiming deduction under section 48(2) of the Act from the sale of building and then showed a long-term capital loss from plant and machinery. The Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further appeal the Tribunal held that the sale in question was not as a running business, and hence the sale attracted capital gains. However, the Tribunal was of the view that the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were well reasoned and required no interference. It may be noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in paragraph 12 of his order has observed: "It is not a case of transfer of series of assets individually but a transfer of the entire business undertaking as a whole." The Tribunal has not interfered or set aside the aforesaid finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). All that the Tribunal has observed in its order was that "the sale in question was not as a running business". Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss of the bakery was closed when it was sold. Hence it cannot be said that the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that it was a transfer of the entire business undertaking as a whole. Land is not a depreciable asset. Section 50 of the Act deals only with transfer of depreciable assets. Once the land forms part of the assets of the undertaking, and the transfer is of the entire undertaking as a whole, it is not possible to bifurcate the sale consideration to a particular asset. As already observed above, section 50 of the Act applies only when depreciable assets alone are transferred. The decision of this court in M. Raghavan v. Asst. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 145 relied on by learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
