THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. EQUINQX SOLUTION PVT LTD.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 4399/2007Supreme Court[2017] 4 S.C.R. 9418 April 2017Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The respondent-assessee, engaged in manufacturing sheet metal components, sold its entire running business, including all assets and liabilities, on December 31, 1990, for Rs. 58,53,682/-. For Assessment Year 1991-92, the assessee claimed a deduction under Section 48(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the sale as a slump sale of a long-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer rejected this, holding that the sale fell under Section 50(2) as a short-term capital gain. The CIT(Appeals) allowed the assessee's claim, finding that Section 50(2) was inapplicable to a sale of the entire business as a running concern. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Gujarat High Court upheld this decision. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the case of the respondent-assessee does not fall within the four corners of Section 50(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 50(2) applies to the transfer of one or more blocks of assets used in the running of a business. However, when the entire running business, with all its assets and liabilities, is sold in one go, as in this case, it constitutes a slump sale of a "long-term capital asset" and not "short-term capital assets". The Court found no fault with the reasoning of the CIT(Appeals), which was rightly upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court. The sale was therefore required to be taxed accordingly. The Court relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Artex Manufacturing Co. and Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sale of an entire running business, including all assets and liabilities, constitutes a transfer of a "long-term capital asset" for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 48(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, or if it is to be treated as a transfer of "short-term capital assets" attracting Section 50(2). Assessee's contention: The sale of the entire running business as a single unit is a slump sale of a long-term capital asset, and therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 48(2). The undertaking itself was held for six years, making it a long-term capital asset. Revenue's contention: The sale of the business falls under Section 50(2) of the Act, classifying it as a short-term capital gain, thereby disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 48(2). The Assessing Officer argued that the case was covered by Section 50(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 48(2),Section 50(2),Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

B· ·.·· ...... . :.--: .·· ......... . . . . . ·. .·· .. . [2017]4 S.C.R. 94 . . . ~ THE ·coMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD .· ·. v. · . EQUINQX SOLUTJQN PVT LTD .. (Civil Appeal No. 4399 of2007) APRIL rs,2017 . [R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAYMANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] li1com~ •Tax Act, ]961 '- ss. 50(2), • 48(2) -Applicability of-· .

Sale of entire runnbig· btisiness 1vith assets ai1d liabilities in one go if amounts toshimp sale ofa ''long ter/11 capita/asset".- Responcfent· C · · as$essee sold its e1itire .run11ing businesS in one go aiidclaimed deduction ulsA8(2) t1;eating such sale as .slump sale in the 11alure of a long term capita/gain~ A~·sessing Officer.rejected the exe11iptio11 clainied holding that the case of the assessee wils covered uls. 50(2) as it was in the nature of short term capital. gain ~ Appeal by D E F H respondei1t before. CIT (Appeal),· allowed holding·. that. the undertaking itself was a capital asset, owned by respondent for six years, being in the nature of long .term capital asset and the same having been so/din one go as a running concern cannot be tent1ed . as short tern1 capital gain~ Appeals byRevimue, dis1i1issed by !TAT · an

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →