Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (6) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ial to hold that there was no case for apportioning the sale price as between the buses and the route permits ? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be permitted to make an apportionment between the price of the bases and the route rights ? " The assessee is carrying on the business of plying buses in Coimbatore District with permits granted by the Road Transport Authority. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1973-74, the assessee had sold four out of six buses owned by it for a composite consideration of Rs. 1,49,990, out of which the assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 94,000 represented the consideration for transfer of route permits. The assessee further claimed that the considera .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the consideration for the route permits may now be stated with reference to the illustrative case of sale of one bus out of the four, because all the other cases are similar in nature. In respect of bus No. MDB 149, which was plying on route No. 8-A, Coimbatore Town Service, the total consideration received was Rs. 46,440. The bus was purchased in the year 1965. The written down value of the bus was Rs. 7,637. However, the assessee estimated the value of the bus at Rs. 16,440 for the purpose of section 41(2). He then claimed that the balance of consideration of Rs. 30,000 represented the price for the transfer of the route permit. Similarly, in the other cases, he had estimated the value of the buses and the value of the route permits. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage or as a stage carriage. Section 59 of the Act states that a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and it also states that no person to whom the permit is transferred shall have any right to use the vehicle without such permission. The procedure for transferring a permit is governed by the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The transferor and transferee should make a joint application for transfer and that application will be notified by the Regional Transport Authority calling for objections, if any, and eventually the transfer prayed for may either be granted or r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this judgment, though the sale was for a consolidated sum, the price paid normally takes within it the value of the route permit, and the price paid is commensurate with the earning capacity in the route, and in almost all cases, the court can take judicial notice of the fact that whenever a bus with a permit is transferred, portion of the consideration would represent the value attributable to the pecuniary gain derived by operating on the route. As already stated in this case, the Tribunal itself accepted that the consideration paid was both for the buses and for the transfer of the route permits. However, the only ground on which the allocation of the consideration was not accepted was that in the agreement itself there was no allocation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Revenue contended that in the light of the view taken by the Tribunal, the Tribunal had not considered it necessary to go into the question of allocation, and that, therefore, we should remit the matter to the Tribunal for allocation. We are of the view that this is not permissible at this stage. We may state that at no stage, the Revenue contended that the allocation made by the assessee was in any way unreasonable or arbitrary. They were only contending that the allocation was not possible and the consideration paid in entirety represented the value of the bus, and there was no value for the permit. Since that contention could not be accepted and since no alternative case was put forward by the Revenue at any stage, we cannot perm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates