Dissolved partnership sale triggers individual capital gains, transfer of partnership rights, broken-period profit tax, and interest liability.

Partners of a dissolved firm who sold the business as a going concern were taxed on capital gains in their individual hands, because their rights in the net partnership assets had crystallised and the sale involved transfer of each partner's own interest rather than a transaction by an Association of Persons. The outgoing partners' relinquishment of rights for consideration amounted to a transfer of a capital asset, including extinguishment of partnership rights, and the plea that it was only dissolution or retirement failed. Profit attributable to the broken period was treated as revenue income, and interest under section 234B was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amounts received by the outgoing partners on dissolution and sale of the firm as a going concern were assessable as capital gains in their individual hands or in the hands of an Association of Persons; (ii) Whether the receipt represented a transfer of capital asset, including extinguishment of rights in partnership assets, or was merely a settlement on dissolution or retirement; (iii) Whether the profits for the broken period of 234 days were taxable as revenue income and whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Issue (i): Whether the amounts received by the outgoing partners on dissolution and sale of the firm as a going concern were assessable as capital gains in their individual hands or in the hands of an Association of Persons.

Analysis: The partnership stood dissolved, and the rights of the partners crystallised into definite shares in the net assets. The subsequent continuance of business was only to facilitate the sale under clause 16 of the partnership deed and the High Court's directions. Mere joint bidding by some partners did not create a new Association of Persons for the sale transaction. The taxable event was the transfer by each outgoing partner of his or her individual interest in the dissolved firm to the successful bidders, and the amounts were paid to identifiable individuals through the Official Liquidator.

Conclusion: The amounts were assessable in the individual hands of the partners and not in the hands of an Association of Persons. The objection based on AOP status failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the receipt represented a transfer of capital asset, including extinguishment of rights in partnership assets, or was merely a settlement on dissolution or retirement.

Analysis: A partner's interest in the net partnership assets is property and therefore a capital asset. The transaction was not a simple distribution of assets on dissolution; the assets and business were sold as a going concern under a contractual clause that contemplated a sale to the highest bidding partner or partners. The outgoing partners relinquished their rights for consideration, which amounted to extinguishment of rights and transfer within the wide definition of transfer under the Act. The value received could be related to the assets, including intangible assets such as goodwill, trademarks and copyrights, and the gain was therefore taxable. The assessee's reliance on authorities dealing with mere dissolution or retirement did not avail on these facts.

Conclusion: The transaction constituted a taxable transfer of capital asset, and capital gains were exigible. The plea that it was only a retirement or non-taxable dissolution failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the profits for the broken period of 234 days were taxable as revenue income and whether interest under section 234B was chargeable.

Analysis: The amount attributable to the broken period was a notional profit computed on an average-profit basis and did not represent an amount already subjected to tax in the hands of any other entity. It was therefore revenue income in the hands of the recipients. The charge of interest under section 234B was also upheld following the binding jurisdictional precedent.

Conclusion: The broken-period profit was taxable as revenue income and the interest charge was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were rejected in entirety, and the assessments made by the revenue authorities were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where partners of a dissolved firm transfer their ascertained interests in the net partnership assets for consideration under a sale mechanism contemplated by the partnership deed, the transaction is a transfer of capital asset giving rise to capital gains in their individual hands, and the mere continuation of business for winding-up purposes does not create an Association of Persons liable in its place.

---