TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules transfer of assets between firms with same partners not a sale</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras I Versus Abdul Khader Motor And Lorry Service</h3> The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the transfer of assets from one firm to another involving the same partners did not ... Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Law And Fact, Mixed Question, Question Of Law Issues:Assessment under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for excess and capital gains arising from the transfer of assets.Analysis:The case involved a firm with two partners that transferred its buses and route permits to a new firm with four partners. The Income-tax Officer assessed the transaction as a sale under section 41(2) and imposed tax on capital gains. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessment, considering the transfer as a sale. However, the Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision, stating there was no transfer of buses and no grounds for assessment under section 41(2) or capital gains tax. The Tribunal's decision was challenged in the present case.The High Court referred to previous judgments establishing that firms are not separate legal entities, emphasizing that the partners in both the original and new firms were the same. Citing precedents, the court explained that when property is transferred to a firm by one of the partners, it does not constitute a sale. This principle was reiterated in various cases, leading to the conclusion that the assessment under section 41(2) for excess amount could not be upheld.Regarding the capital gains tax assessment, the court analyzed the applicability of section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Referring to previous judgments, the court determined that the transaction did not fall under the definition of 'transfer' as per section 2(47), which includes sale, exchange, relinquishment, or extinguishment of rights in a capital asset. The court found that in this case, there was no complete divestiture of the assessee's interest in the assets transferred to the new firm, and no specific rights were extinguished. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, rejecting the capital gains tax assessment.In conclusion, the court answered the referred question affirmatively, deciding against the revenue. The assessee was awarded costs, including counsel's fee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
