https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120598 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, determining that the sale was a "slump sale" of the undertaking as a going concern, rather than a sale of depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income-tax Act. It concluded that the computation of capital gains was not feasible due to the inability to determine the cost of improvement for intangible assets, such as goodwill and trademarks. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the allegation of the sale being a colorable device to avoid tax was rejected. en-us Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2023 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120598 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, determining that the sale was a "slump sale" of the undertaking as a going concern, rather than a sale of depreciable assets under Section 50 of the Income-tax Act. It concluded that the computation of capital gains was not feasible due to the inability to determine the cost of improvement for intangible assets, such as goodwill and trademarks. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the allegation of the sale being a colorable device to avoid tax was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120598