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>New company qualifies for tax benefits under section 84 of Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Devson Limited</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax Versus Devson Limited - [1975] 98 ITR 311 Issues:Interpretation of section 84 of the Income-tax Act regarding tax holiday eligibility for a new business entity formed through sale, reconstruction, or succession.Detailed Analysis:The judgment pertains to two references concerning the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67, involving M/s. Devson Ltd. and a new company, M/s. Kashmir Fruit and Chemical Industries Ltd. The dispute revolves around the claim of tax rebate under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, known as a tax holiday, based on whether the formation of the new company constituted a new business or a reconstruction of the existing one.The Income-tax Officer initially denied the rebate, alleging that no new company was formed, and it was a mere reconstruction of the old business by M/s. Devson Ltd. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held in favor of the assessees, concluding that the new company indeed purchased the business of M/s. Kashmir Fruit and Chemical Industries, qualifying for the tax holiday under section 84.The judgment emphasizes the distinction between a sale and reconstruction of a business entity under section 84(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act. It highlights that if a new business emerges through succession or sale, the concept of reconstruction does not apply. The Tribunal affirmed that M/s. Devson Ltd. and M/s. Kashmir Fruit and Chemical Industries were separate entities, with a vendor-vendee relationship, supporting the eligibility for tax rebate.Reference to the Bombay High Court ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. is made to underscore that where there is an out-and-out sale, reconstruction is ruled out. The judgment clarifies that the nature of the transaction must be scrutinized to determine if it constitutes a sale or reconstruction, with a focus on the substance rather than the form of the transaction.The judgment concludes that the new company, M/s. Kashmir Fruit and Chemical Industries, qualified as a new undertaking entitled to tax benefits under section 84(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. It highlights that the Tribunal's findings of fact are conclusive, and no question of law arises from the established facts, emphasizing that a reference to the court should only be made when a clear legal issue emerges.Ultimately, the court affirms the Tribunal's decision, holding that the assessees were rightfully entitled to the exemption provided under section 84 of the Income-tax Act, based on the factual findings and interpretations of the relevant legal provisions.
TaxTMI 