COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT vs. MIS. ELECTRIC CONTROL GEAR MFG. CO.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 101/1982Supreme Court1997 INSC 53908 July 1997Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.B. PATTANAIK COMMISSIONER OF5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership concern, transferred its business as a going concern, including assets and liabilities, to a limited company for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs. The Income Tax Officer sought to tax the depreciation allowed (Rs. 3,32,863) under Section 41(2) and capital gains on the sale. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held Section 41(2) applicable but not capital gains in the hands of a registered firm under Section 114. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal remitted the matter for recomputation and held the assessee's status to be a 'registered firm' not 'association of persons'. The High Court, in reference, held Section 41(2) applicable, the status as a registered firm, and the assessee entitled to relief based on circulars. The Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's judgment.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. Regarding the applicability of Section 41(2), the Court held that there was nothing on record to indicate the price attributable to specific assets like machinery, plant, or building out of the total consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs. Merely because depreciation of Rs. 3,32,863 was allowed, it could not be presumed to be the excess of the price over the written-down value. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding Section 41(2) not applicable. On the issue of the assessee's status, the Court affirmed the High Court's view that the Tribunal was incorrect in holding the status as a registered firm, and that the assessee's status was not that of an association of persons. However, concerning the entitlement to relief based on circulars, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, holding that the assessee was not entitled to any relief on the basis of the circulars relied upon. The ratio is that for Section 41(2) to apply, the price attributable to specific assets must be ascertainable from the consideration, and reliance on circulars for relief can be rejected if not justified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 41(2) were applicable? (Question of law) 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the status of the assessee was a registered firm and not that of an association of persons? (Question of law) 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to any relief on the basis of the two circulars relied on by it? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions (implied from High Court's favorable answers and Supreme Court's reversal): - Section 41(2) was not applicable. - The status of the assessee was a registered firm. - The assessee was entitled to relief based on the two circulars. Revenue's contentions (implied from Supreme Court's favorable answers and High Court's unfavorable answers): - Section 41(2) was applicable. - The status of the assessee was not a registered firm. - The assessee was not entitled to relief based on the two circulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 41(2),Section 114,Section 45

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT v. MIS. ELECTRIC CONTROL GEAR MFG. CO. JULY 8, 1997 • B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Income Tax A::t, 1961-Sections 41, l14--Part11ership concern-Trans- fer of business as a going concern to a limited company-Liability to tax u/s. 41(2) and liability to capital gains-Nothing to indicate price att1ibutable to C assets like machinery, plant or building out of total consideration amoullt-Whether provisions of Section 41(2) applicable-Held, No-Status of assessee was that of an association of persons.

The assessee, a partnership concern entered into an agreement whereby it transferred the entire assets of business together with liabilities D as a going concern to a limited company for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs.

The Income Tax Officer held that depreciation allowed to the assessee firm in respect of the assets transferred by the firm to the company as chargeable to tax u/s. 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961' and included capital gains after excluding the sum of Rs. 5,000 as basic exemption, in E the computation of the total income of the assessee under the head 'Capital Gains'. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Co

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 41(2)

All 53 judgments and leading authorities on Section 41(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →