TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be within the same factory campus, he sustained the Assessee's stand that it was not slump sale. On further appeal, the Tribunal decided both the issues in favour of the Assessee. We admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law : "[i] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law as well as on facts in directing not to consider the sale of property at Ghatkopar as a slump sale within the meaning under Section 2(42C) of the I.T. Act, 1961? [iv] Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal has erred in law as well as on fact in allowing the aforesaid amount of Rs.4,15,63,688/- and Rs.2,73,866/- written off in P/L account represent loss and is deductible under the provision of Section 28 of the I. T. Act ?" There were three other suggested questions formulated by the Revenue but in our view those questions are covered by the two points on which we are admitting the appeal. As we find from the order of assessment itself, during the relevant previous year, the Assessee had sold its immovable property, the location of which we have already referred to, for a sum of Rs. 30 crores and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....determination of the value of an asset or liability for the sole purpose of payment of stamp duty, registration fees or other similar taxes or fees shall not be regarded as assignment of values to individual assets or liabilities" Defining criteria for determining as to whether a particular transaction of property involving both movable and immovable is slump sale or not is composite sale of an undertaking or part thereof. Revenue's case is that real intention of the Assessee is to be ascertained from the transaction and not in what manner they have designed the transaction. The second point on which Mr. Nizamuddin emphasised was that the sale of both the immovable assets as well as plant and machinery etc. took place in the same financial year. Whether it is a composite sale of the assets or there was the sale of individual components thereof is essentially a question of fact. On this point, we find both the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal went with the Assessee's case. The Commissioner in particular has analysed the transaction and directed the Assessing Officer to allow relief to the appellant considering the amount of long term gains computed by the Assessee itself w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If employment of agents is incidental to the carrying on of business, it must logically follow that losses which are incidental to such employment are also incidental to the carrying on of the business. Human nature being what it is, it is impossible to rule out the possibility of an employee taking advantage of his position as such employee and misappropriating the funds of his employer, and the loss arising from such misappropriation must be held to arise out of the carrying on of business and to be incidental to it. And that is how it would be dealt with according to ordinary commercial principles of trading. At the same time, it should be emphasised that the loss for which a deduction could be made under section 10(1) must be one that springs directly from the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it and not any loss sustained by the assessee, even if it has some connection with his business. If, for example, a thief were to break overnight into the premises of a money-lender and run away with funds secured therein, that must result in the depletion of the resources available to him for lending and the loss must, in that sense, be a business loss, but it is not o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ong period and had accumulated over many years. The company after review of the books of accounts and after due diligence and discussion with the statutory auditors came to the conclusion that detailed reconciliation and accounting adjustments of these advances was no longer possible due to lack of information and non-availability of old records and therefore made a provision towards doubtful advances in the year ended 31.3.2000. In the previous year the Assessee decided to write off the amounts disputed in this appeal as irrecoverable advances. The fact that these sums are allowable as deduction u/s.28 of the Act as loss incidental to the business of the Assessee is not disputed by the Revenue. The only grievance of the revenue is that the Assessee has not established that these outstanding were irrecoverable. It is no doubt true as a legal requirement that the Assessee in order to claim deduction of a sum as loss incidental to business has to prove that the losses were incidental to the business and connected with the carrying of business of the Assessee and also prove that the sum claimed as loss have become irrecoverable. A copy of the details of Bad advances and bad other curr....