News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
From the Courts »
 Norma India Ltd. X-43, Loha Mandi Naraina New Delhi – 110028 Vs. DCIT Circle – 18 (2) New Delhi
 A.G. Industries Pvt. Ltd., House No. 26, Anandlok, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi
 Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., 1-Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow. Vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-I, New Delhi.
 Chahat Exim Pvt. Ltd, A-113, Safdurjung Enclave, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-6(1), New Delhi
 DCIT, Cent. Central -8, New Delhi Vs. Dynasty Construction (P) Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi
 Ms. Simran Hoon C/o S.J.B. Relan, Chartered Accountant 901, Vikram Tower, 16, Rajendra Place, Vs. DCIT Circle-3 New Delhi.
 Shri Mukul Joshi, D-45, Second Floor, South Extension Part-2, New Delhi. Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-19, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi.
 Virgo Marketing Pvt. Ltd. C/o Rra Taxindia,D-28, South Extension,Part-I, New Delhi – 49 Vs. Ito, Ward 26(4), Bulandshahr
 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, LTU, New Delhi. Vs. SRF Ltd. Block – C, Sector – 45, Gurgaon
 Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, A-25, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , Central Circle-28, New Delhi
 IRCON International Limited, Palika Bhawan, R.K. Puram Sector-13, New Delhi Vs. Addl. C.I.T., Range-11, New Delhi.

CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
April, 29th 2017

The assessee claimed that as it had sold their entire running business in one go with its assets and liabilities at a slump price, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act could not be applied to such sale. It was claimed that it was not a case of sale of any individual or one block asset which may attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act. It was also claimed that that since the undertaking itself is a capital asset owned by the assessee nearly for six years and being in the nature of long term capital asset and the same having been sold in one go as a running concerned, it cannot be termed a “short terms capital gain” so as to attract the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act as was held by the Assessing Officer. This plea was upheld by the e CIT (Appeals), Tribunal and the High Court. On appeal by the department to the Supreme Court HELD dismissing the appeal:

(i) In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent (assessee) does not fall within the four corners of Section 50 (2) of the Act. Section 50 (2) applies to a case where any block of assets are transferred by the assessee but where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, such sale, in our view, cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. In other words, the provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business. Such is not the case here because in this case, the assessee sold the entire business as a running concern.

(ii) As rightly noticed by the CIT (appeal) that the entire running business with all assets and liabilities having been sold in one go by the respondent-assessee, it was a slump sale of a “long-term capital asset”. It was, therefore, required to be taxed accordingly.

(iii) Our view finds support with the law laid down by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. [1997(6) SCC 437 CIT].

(iv) In Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., 264 ITR 193 (Bombay) also, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court examined this question in detail on somewhat similar facts and has taken the same view. The Learned Judge S.H Kapadia – (as His Lordship then was as Judge of the Bombay High Court and later became CJI) speaking for the Bench aptly explained the legal position to which we concur as it correctly summarized the legal position applicable to such facts.

(v) Learned Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) was not able to cite any decision taking a contrary view nor was he able to point out any error in the decisions cited at the Bar by the assessee’s counsel referred supra.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions