1. CIT vs Ms Bharat Bijlee Ltd, ITA No. 2153 of 2011, Date of Order: 09.05.2014, High Court of Bombay
Section 50B r.w.s. 2(42C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Whether the provisions of section 50B of the Act are also applicable in case of transfer of unit is by way of exchange.
Held_No
The provisions of slump sale are applicable where the transfer is by
way of “sale”. In the instant case, assessee has transferred Lift
Division to other Company under the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by
the High Court and the other Company issued preference shares in
consideration of the same. The AO made the addition by assuming the
value of the shares is the price or monetary consideration for the
transfer. However, the assessee contented that since as there was no
price in money which was paid and received merely because there was
quantification when preference shares were issued, does not mean that
monetary consideration was determined. Thus, the value of the shares
could not have been taken as the basis.
After
analyzing the provisions of the statute, the Hon’ble High Court has held
that the applicability of Section 50B would have to be considered in
the facts and circumstances of each case. If the transfer is by way of
sale, only then it could be termed as a slump sale and then Section 50B
would be attracted.
Case referred: CIT vs Motors & General Stores (P) Ltd. (1967)
Vol.66 ITR 692, SRIE Infrastructure Finance Ltd, W.P. (Civil) No.1592 of
2012.
(Please click here for judgment )
2. CIT vs Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhatti, Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2014, Date of Order: 17.02.2014, High Court of Gujarat
There is
no breach of Rule 46A when interest of revenue was safeguarded by
calling for remand report and permitting the AO to comment on such
additional evidence.
In the instant
case, the notice of hearing issued by the AO was received by the
assessee on the date of hearing itself and thus could not produce
necessary evidence on such date. When subsequently, assessee attended
the office of the AO with necessary evidence, he learnt that the order
of assessment was already passed. The CIT (A) permitted additional
evidence to be produced before him after considered the reason and also
called remand report from the Ld. AO.
Held that when
the interest of the Revenue is safeguarded by calling the remand report
and permitting the Assessing Officer to comment on such additional
evidence. Then the admission of additional evidence could not be stated
to be in breach of the requirement of Rule 46A.
(Please click here for judgment )
New User? 
Subscribe Now