Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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: (i) Whether the transfer of the proprietary business undertaking by way of gift to a company was a genuine gift or a sham colourable device liable to capital gains tax, and whether section 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied; (ii) whether depreciation on the transferred business undertaking and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against salary income were allowable; (iii) whether write-off of sundry debtors and pre-operative/deferred revenue expenses was allowable.
Issue (i): Whether the transfer of the proprietary business undertaking by way of gift to a company was a genuine gift or a sham colourable device liable to capital gains tax, and whether section 50B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied.
Analysis: The transfer was found to be a contemporaneous arrangement after reduction of shareholding in the donee company, with the assessee still retaining substantial control. The company was held to be an artificial person to which the concept of natural love and affection did not meaningfully apply. The deed and surrounding circumstances showed that the so-called gift was not a genuine gratuitous transfer but a colourable device to avoid capital gains tax. On computation, the authorities' approach of applying section 50B to determine net worth and capital gains was upheld.
Conclusion: The transaction was not accepted as a genuine exempt gift, and the capital gains computation under section 50B was sustained against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether depreciation on the transferred business undertaking and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation against salary income were allowable.
Analysis: Since the alleged gift was treated as a sham and there was no real succession of business in the manner claimed by the assessee, the claim for proportionate depreciation under the succession proviso failed. The unabsorbed depreciation was also held not available for set-off against salary income in view of the post-amendment scheme of section 32(2) and the restriction under section 71(2A).
Conclusion: The disallowance of depreciation and the denial of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation were upheld against the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether write-off of sundry debtors and pre-operative/deferred revenue expenses was allowable.
Analysis: The debts and expenses were treated as part of the same colourable arrangement. The sundry debtors were written off on the same date on which the business assets and liabilities were transferred, and no bona fide basis for the write-off was shown. Likewise, the pre-operative and deferred revenue expenses were not shown to have crystallised during the year and were not independently proved to be allowable deductions.
Conclusion: The disallowances of the write-off of sundry debtors and of the pre-operative/deferred revenue expenses were confirmed against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in entirety, and the Revenue's position on taxability and disallowance of the claimed deductions was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A transfer described as a gift will be taxed according to its true character where surrounding facts show a colourable device lacking genuine gratuitous intent, and related deductions or set-offs must also fail where they depend on that unreal transaction.