TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that in respect of the self-same assessment year challenging the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has also preferred an appeal, which was registered as ITA No.15 of 2008 which we disposed of today by a separate judgment. The questions formulated at the time of admission of the appeal are as follows: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 48,21,901/- out of the interest expenditure incurred by the appellant for the purposes of its business and allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse? (ii) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the agreements dated October 8, 2002 and December 19, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on: "The assessee during the year under consideration has sold the entire assets of Katalguri Tea Estate and Tippuk Tea Estate. In respect of sale proceeds for plant & machinery for both the tea gardens the assessee received Rs. 8,23,75,000/- out of which it claimed the WDV at Rs. 7,18,62,306/- and the balance amount for Rs. 1,05,12,694/- has been shown as short term capital gain. It has been stated by the A/R that the assessee had eight tea gardens in all out of which two gardens have been sold. It is further seen from the Tax Audit Report that the opening WDV for all the eight tea gardens were Rs. 2,77,34,222/-. Adding with this, the cost of new plant & machinery added for this year amounting to Rs. 4,39,68,100/- and Rs. 1,59,984/-. Out ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... etc. as claimed by the appellant in its assessment proceedings. Such a claim is contrary to the two agreements to sale executed by the appellant. Thus the appellant's contention of disclosing only short term capital gains on Plant & Machinery is totally erroneous and is rejected." In a further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the views of the CIT(A) by stating as follows: "On hearing most contested argument and counter-reply from both the sides, perusing the orders of the authorities below, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A) particularly because it is a speaking one on the issue with logical reasoning which dismissing the ground of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessee does not succeed on this ground.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessing officer, sought to take a different line by alleging that the capital gains have to be computed on the basis of slump sale. This was not a case of slump sale. Therefore, there was no reason why assessment should be made on that basis. The Tribunal did not go into the matter at all. Mr. Nizamuddin is unable to show as to why and how can the sale be treated as a slump sale. He is unable to dispute that in the assessment year 2002-03, the plant and machinery of all the gardens had a written down value of Rs. 2,77,34,222/-. For the year under consideration, a separate standard could not have been insisted upon. That would not also be in accordance with the concept of block of assets. Once the fact that the block of assets compu....