https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11540 For AY 1995-96, the dominant issue was whether transfer of an undertaking "as is where is" constituted a slump sale or sale of itemised assets for capital gains computation. Applying judge-made slump sale principles (in absence of a statutory definition then), HC held that sale of the business as a whole involves no allocation of consideration to individual assets, whereas an itemised sale requires apportionment across all transferred assets; restricting consideration to selected assets would artificially inflate liability. HC held the transaction was for a slump price and that s.45 applied, set aside the Tribunal order, and remanded to the AO to determine cost of the undertaking, valuation under s.55, indexation basis/quantum, depreciation on blocks, and compute any capital gains under ss.45/48. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Jan 2026 17:45:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11540 For AY 1995-96, the dominant issue was whether transfer of an undertaking "as is where is" constituted a slump sale or sale of itemised assets for capital gains computation. Applying judge-made slump sale principles (in absence of a statutory definition then), HC held that sale of the business as a whole involves no allocation of consideration to individual assets, whereas an itemised sale requires apportionment across all transferred assets; restricting consideration to selected assets would artificially inflate liability. HC held the transaction was for a slump price and that s.45 applied, set aside the Tribunal order, and remanded to the AO to determine cost of the undertaking, valuation under s.55, indexation basis/quantum, depreciation on blocks, and compute any capital gains under ss.45/48. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11540