TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were validly initiated for want of full and true disclosure of material facts; (ii) whether the transaction dated 28 February 1947 attracted section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 as a transfer giving rise to capital gains; and (iii) if section 12B applied, whether the capital gains were to be computed on the agreed sale price of Rs. 75 lakhs or on the market value of the transferred assets.
Issue (i): Whether proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 were validly initiated for want of full and true disclosure of material facts.
Analysis: The reopening provision required reason to believe that income had escaped assessment by reason of omission or failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The assessee had not placed the sale deed and other material bearing on the transfer of shares and securities before the assessing authority, and the original return did not contain the particulars needed to reveal capital gains. The primary facts necessary to ascertain capital gains were therefore not fully disclosed.
Conclusion: The proceedings under section 34(1)(a) were validly initiated, in favour of Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the transaction dated 28 February 1947 attracted section 12B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 as a transfer giving rise to capital gains.
Analysis: The transaction was embodied in an agreement providing for sale of shares and securities for a fixed monetary consideration, with shares allotted only as a mode of satisfying the price. The legal character of the transaction, not its commercial substance, governed taxability. On that footing, the arrangement was a sale and not a mere readjustment or exchange.
Conclusion: Section 12B was attracted and the transfer gave rise to capital gains, in favour of Revenue.
Issue (iii): If section 12B applied, whether the capital gains were to be computed on the agreed sale price of Rs. 75 lakhs or on the market value of the transferred assets.
Analysis: In a sale, the full value of the consideration means the actual price bargained for, unless the statutory proviso permitting adoption of fair market value is attracted. The proviso did not apply because the transfer occurred before section 12B came into force and the statutory conditions for substituting market value were absent. The computation therefore had to proceed on the agreed sale price.
Conclusion: The capital gains were to be computed on the basis of Rs. 75 lakhs, and the amount stood at Rs. 27,04,772, in favour of Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment was upheld, capital gains tax was held leviable on the transfer of shares and securities, and the taxable amount was confined to the agreed sale consideration rather than the market value of the assets.
Ratio Decidendi: For a sale not covered by the statutory proviso, the full value of consideration under section 12B is the actual sale price agreed and received, and reassessment is valid where the assessee failed to disclose primary facts material to computation of capital gains.
TaxTMI 
