| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 1185 1979 SLD 1185 (1979) 119 ITR 369 |
Madras High Court
TAX CASE No. 380 OF 1974 (REFERENCE No. 193 OF 1974), MARCH 7, 1978
P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C.J. AND V. RAMASWAMI, J
K.S. Sivaraman and B. Kumar for the Applicant. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the
Respondent
TAX CASE No. 380 OF 1974 (REFERENCE No. 193 OF 1974), MARCH 7, 1978
P. GOVINDAN NAIR, C.J. AND V. RAMASWAMI, J
K.S. Sivaraman and B. Kumar for the Applicant. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the
Respondent
S. Vaidyanathaswami
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Chargeable as - Assessment year 1967-68 - Assessee sold buses with route permits - Sale deed specifically, referred to sale of route permits and also separately gave sale consideration - Whether, in aforesaid circumstances, it could be said that route permit was property - Held, yes - Whether, however, question of capital gain could arise on sale of route permits only if, some cost had been incurred for acquisition thereof - Held, yes - Whether, since Tribunal had not recorded any finding on that aspect, matter was to be remitted to it for disposal afresh - Held, yes ( - Matter remitted.) FACTS The assessee sold buses with route permits. In the document of sale, separate sale considerations for buses and route permits were given. The Income-tax Officer brought the value of the route permits to tax as capital gains. The contention of the assessee was that the route permit was not property and in any case since there was no cost of acquisition, the amount realised by the sale of it could not be subjected to tax as capital gains. Both these contentions were rejected by the Income-tax Officer as well as the AAC and, the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that, though the cost incurred by the assessee in securing the route permit might be negligible, nevertheless some cost must have been incurred in the process of acquiring the property. In the absence of any material to show as to what was the cost of acquisition, the Tribunal held that the entire value of the route permit would be liable to tax as capital gains. On reference : HELD The sale deed specifically referred to the sale of the route permits and also separately gave the sale consideration. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the route permit was not property. However, the Tribunal ought to have given a finding as to what was the cost of acquisition on the basis of the evidence available. Only if it came to the conclusion, that, there was some cost incurred for the acquisition, the question of capital gains could arise at all. In the absence of such a finding, the reference could not be answered but the Tribunal was directed to go into the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492