TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 593
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s before it against the order dated 19.12.2008 u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer, Deputy commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. The facts in brief are the Assessee is a public limited company and in the assessment year 2003-04 Max India Ltd. (MIL) being the parent company of the Assessee transferred its healthcare business to the Assessee, pursuant to the business transfer agreement dated 27.06.2002. In terms of said agreement all assets and liabilities were acquired by the Assessee from MIL on a going concern basis for lump-sum consideration of Rs. 68.10 crores. Since, the assets were transferred f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsfer of healthcare business of slump sale basis to capital tax u/s. 50B the provision of explanation 6 to section 43(1) read with explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act were not attracted. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that actual cost of acquisition in the hands of Assessee shall not be adopted for the purpose of claiming depreciation u/s. 32 read with section 43(1) of the Act. 3. The revenue had challenged this before the ITAT but assessment for the year 2003-04 was settled in VSVS, 2020 scheme. The Ld. AO continued to apply the principles subsequent to Assessment Year for which now the matters is before this tribunal. 4. Apart from above in the relevant Assessment Years there were disallowances of management consultancy fee on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2001 while reducing block of assets with the written down value of assets transferred, as appearing as on 31.03.2001. It was submitted that had the MIL undertaken the revaluation, it would have reinstituted the value of assets in its balance sheet before the sale. 7.1. The Ld. Sr. Counsel heavily relied upon the provision of explanation 2 to section 43(6) to contend that the same are not applicable in the present case because at the time of transfer, MIL was holding company of the Assessee and did not claim exemption of capital gains u/s. 47(iv) of the Act and offered the same to short term capital gain tax in the return of income. So, the Assessee was not required to restrict actual cost of assets in its hand to the WDV, appearing in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olding and Subsidiary Companies fall under prescribed conditions, then the exemption granted shall stand withdrawn and the transaction shall be chargeable to Capital Gain Tax in the previous year in which the original Transfer between the group Companies took place. Further, Section 49(3) of the Act provides, where the capital gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset referred to in clause (iv) or, as the case may be, clause (v) of section 47 is deemed to be income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" by virtue of the provisions contained in section 47A, the cost of acquisition of such asset to the transferee company shall be the cost for which such asset was acquired by it. 9. It is admitted fact that the consideration of acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the allocations of expenses made by MIL to the Assessee was not at fair market price or excessive or unreasonable. It was submitted that the Assessee company did not have any independent legal secretarial and managerial departments and thus the services of MIL were obtained on regular basis and MIL had estimated and credited only those expenses which was relatable to the business of the Assessee. 11.1. It was submitted on behalf of the revenue that the expenses did not pass the test of commercial expediency and accordingly it was submitted on behalf of the revenue by the Ld. DR the expenditure is not wholly and exclusively led out for the purpose of business. 12. In this context it can be observed that the Ld. AO has himself allowed ....