Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the transfer of fixed assets to a subsidiary company violated the terms of the sales tax deferral agreement and justified cancellation of the deferral benefit and recovery proceedings.
Analysis: The deferral scheme and the agreements were to be construed according to their express terms. The prohibition against alienation of fixed assets and the requirement of prior permission for disposal had to be strictly enforced. The transfer to a newly incorporated subsidiary could not be treated as irrelevant merely because of common management or family control, since the subsidiary was a separate legal entity and the revenue implications could not be assumed away. The plea to read the scheme expansively in favour of the assessee was rejected, as the court held that contractual terms cannot be rewritten to suit one party's interpretation.
Conclusion: The transfer amounted to a breach of the agreement, and the notices and rejection order were upheld; relief was declined.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax deferral benefit is granted under a contractual scheme, the conditions of the agreement must be strictly complied with, and transfer of assets to a separate legal entity contrary to the agreement can validly result in cancellation of the benefit and recovery.