Skip to main content

Transfer of a going concern in exchange of Bonds and shares, not sale : Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: Upholding the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a division bench comprising of SC Dharamadhikari and GC Kulkarni, JJ held that transfer of a business undertaking as a going concern against bonds and preference shares issued was not a sale, but an exchange. Subsequently, section 2(42C) and section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the computation of capital gains were not applicable to such a transfer. In the present case, the respondent company had transferred its lift division to another company by way of a slump sale and as consideration for the transfer, preference shares and bonds were allotted by that company to the respondent. The taxpayer claimed that the transfer was an 'exchange' and not a 'sale' and therefore, was not taxable as slump sale. However, this was not accepted by the Tax Officer. The company then appealed to the Tribunal which accepted its contentions. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, CIT moved the High Court. The Bombay High Court relying on the findings and observations of the Tribunal, also concluded that the entire scheme of arrangement envisaged that the transfer of the lift division was not for any monetary consideration, thus it was a case of exchange and not sale. The Court distinguished the facts of this case with the Delhi High Court ruling of SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited (SIFL) vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission, Writ Petition Civil No. 1592/2012 where the consideration was in terms of money as well as shares, thus the transfer could not be termed as an exchange in that case. [Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bharat Bijlee Limited, Income Tax Appeal No. 2153 of 2011, decided on May 9, 2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more