C.I.T., U.P. vs. BANKEY LAL VAIDYA (DEAD) BY L.RS~

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1223/1967Supreme Court[1971] 3 S.C.R. 40621 January 1971Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: J.C. SHAH, K.S. HEGDE, A.N. GROVER C.I.T., U.P.4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, karta of a Hindu undivided family, was a partner in a firm manufacturing pharmaceutical products. The partnership was dissolved on July 27, 1946. The firm's assets, including goodwill and machinery, were valued at Rs. 2,50,000. The assessee was paid Rs. 1,25,000 for his share, and the business and goodwill were taken over by the other partner. The Income-tax Officer sought to tax Rs. 70,000 as capital gains for assessment year 1947-48. The assessing and appellate authorities, including the Tribunal (which reduced the amount to Rs. 65,000), held against the assessee. The High Court, however, ruled in favour of the assessee. The revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the transaction did not amount to a sale, exchange, or transfer of capital assets and therefore, the sum of Rs. 65,000 could not be taxed as capital gains. The Court reasoned that in the course of dissolution, assets of a firm can be valued and divided by allotting individual assets or paying the money value equivalent. This is a recognized method of making up the accounts of a dissolved firm, and the receipt of money by a partner is simply the receipt of his share in the distributed assets. The assessee received the money value of his share in the firm's assets, but he did not agree to sell, exchange, or transfer his share. The payment was a consequence of the dissolution and distribution of assets, not a sale. The Court distinguished the cases relied upon by the revenue, stating that James Anderson involved a sale of shares by an executor and Dewas Cine Corporation dealt with the meaning of 'sale' in a different context, where adjustment of partners' rights in a dissolved firm by allotment of assets was not considered a transfer for a price. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on a true interpretation of Section 12-B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the sum of Rs. 65,000 has been correctly taxed as capital gains? This question turns on whether the transaction on the dissolution of the firm constituted a sale, exchange, or transfer of capital assets. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the receipt of Rs. 1,25,000 was merely the realization of his share in the distributed assets of the dissolved firm and not a sale, exchange, or transfer of his share in the assets. Therefore, it did not attract capital gains tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the transaction amounted to a sale or transfer of capital assets, making the gains taxable under Section 12-B(1). The revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in James Anderson v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City, and Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh and Nagpur & Bhandara v. Dewas Cine Corporation to support its argument.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12-B(1),Section 66(1),Section 10(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

406 C.I.T., U.P. v. BANKEY LAL VAIDYA (DEAD) BY L.RS~ January 21, 1971 A [J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Income-tax Act, 1922, s. 128(1)-Partition of asset• of a firm 011 dis-· K solution-Assets of firms valuett--Outgoing partner paid value of his share-Whet.her transaction amounts to sale resulting· iii capital gain.

The respondent who was the karta of his Hindu undivided family entered into partnership with one D to carry on the business of manufac- turing and selling pharmaceutical products etc.

On July 27, 1946 the partnership was dissolved. The assets of the firm which included good- will, machinery, furniture etc. were valued on tile date of dissolution at Rs. 2,50,000 and the respondent was paid the sum of Rs. 1,25,000 in lieu of his share and the business together with the goodwill was taken over by D. The question in income-tax proceedings was whether_ the transaction was one of sale liable to capital gains tax under s. 12B(l) of the Income-tax Act. 1922. The assessing and appellate authorities held against the respondent. The High Court in reference, however, held in hi< favour. The revenue appealed. HELD : There was no clau

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 66(1)

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →