Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 454 2000 SLD 454 2000 PTD 3236 (1999) 237 ITR 537
Bombay High Court
Income Tax Reference No. 93 of 1985, decision dated: 5-11-1998
DR. B.P. SARAF AND DR. MRS. PRATIBHA UPASANI, JJ
Ms. V.B. Patel with U.I. Dalai for the Assessee. R.V. Desai with B.M. Chattarjee for the Commissioner

ANAND ELECTIRC C0. LTD

VS

COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 41(2)

(a) Income-tax--- ----Income---Solatium received by assessee is taxable. The solatium of Rs.2,20,000 received by the assessee was taxable. Akola Electric Supply Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 265 (Bom.) fol. (b) Income-tax--- ----Profits chargeable to tax ---Assessees undertaking taken over by purchaser---Did not constitute a slump sale but only sale of individual assets of undertaking---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.41(2). Taking over of the undertaking of the assessee-company did not constitute a slump sale but only the sale of the individual assets of the undertaking for purposes of section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (1997) 227 ITR 260 (SC) fol. JUDGMENT DR. B.P. SARAF, J.---By this reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, .1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this Court for opinion at the instance of the assessee: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the taking over of the undertaking of the assessee-company did not constitute a slump sale but only the sale of the individual assets of the undertaking? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in determining the cost of the assets for the purpose of capital gains the consumers contribution has to be deducted from the cost of the assets for capital gains and the application of section 41(2) and if so by following what procedure? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the solatium given to the applicant of Rs.2,20,000 was taxable?" . So far as question No.3 is concerned, the controversy therein is covered by the decision of this Court in Akola Electric Supply Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 265. Following the same, question No.3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. So far as question No.2 is concerned, Ms. V.B. Patel, learned counsel for the assessee, fairly stated before us that the controversy therein has become academic as the factual controversy pertaining to this question has been remanded by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. This question has become academic and need not be answered.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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