Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds Income-tax Officer's power to value assets, including goodwill, based on market conditions and evidence.</h1> <h3>JOGTA COAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTA.</h3> The High Court affirmed the Income-tax Officer's competence to determine asset valuation, including goodwill, based on market conditions and evidence ... - Issues Involved:1. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to go behind the sale deed and adopt his own value of the assets.2. Whether any goodwill was purchased by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. Competence of the Income-tax Officer to go behind the sale deed and adopt his own value of the assets.The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider whether the Income-tax Officer was competent to go behind the conveyance and fix a valuation of his own. The High Court examined the allocation of the purchase price of Rs. 23,00,000, which was split as Rs. 13,00,000 for underground and surface rights and other appurtenances, and Rs. 10,00,000 for machinery, stores, furniture, stocks, etc. The Income-tax Officer did not accept these allocations and valued the plant and machinery at Rs. 3,50,000, allocating Rs. 7,50,000 towards goodwill, even though the sale deed did not mention goodwill. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this estimate, and the Appellate Tribunal revised the values to Rs. 6,00,000 for plant and machinery and Rs. 4,00,000 for goodwill.The High Court referenced several cases to support the view that tax authorities are competent to go behind a contract or conveyance when circumstances justify such a course. For instance, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Harveys Ltd. [1940] 8 I.T.R. 307, the Madras High Court held that the original cost of assets is a question of fact and can be questioned if the price appears fictitious. Similarly, in Pindi Kashmir Transport Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 I.T.R. 595, the Lahore High Court upheld the tax authorities' right to determine the actual cost of vehicles when the nominal value appeared inflated.In the present case, the tax authorities found the value of plant and machinery stated in the sale deed to be significantly higher than the written down values in the vendor's books. The assessee was unable to produce evidence to support the market value of the plant and machinery. Consequently, the authorities estimated the values based on prevailing market conditions and included goodwill in the valuation, which was justified given the circumstances, including the existing mine's profitability and the transfer of coal quotas.2. Whether any goodwill was purchased by the assessee.The High Court noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal both included goodwill in their valuation, despite the sale deed not explicitly mentioning it. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner explained that the vendors had a goodwill account of about Rs. 10,00,000 in their books, created when the partnership was converted into a private limited company. The mine was profitable and had existing coal quotas, which added value to the business. The Supreme Court in S.C. Cambatta & Co. Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax [1961] 41 I.T.R. 500 defined goodwill broadly, encompassing factors like location, service, reputation, and customer connections.Based on these factors, the High Court concluded that the tax authorities were justified in including goodwill as part of the consideration. The answer to the question referred was in the affirmative, supporting the Income-tax Officer's competence to go behind the conveyance and fix a valuation.Conclusion:The High Court affirmed the competence of the Income-tax Officer to go behind the sale deed and adopt his own valuation of the assets, including goodwill, based on the circumstances and evidence presented. The judgment emphasized the broad understanding of goodwill and upheld the tax authorities' right to question and reassess the stated values in the sale deed. The applicant was directed to pay the costs of the application.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found