ALAPATI VENKATARAMIAU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HYDERABAD

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5/1964Supreme Court[1965] 3 S.C.R. 56729 March 1965Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI B9 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, proprietor of Mohan Tile Works, entered into an agreement on March 17, 1948, to sell his factory, plant, machinery, furniture, stocks, and goodwill to Mohan Industries Limited for Rs. 2,00,000. Possession of factory assets was handed over the same day. Entries in company and assessee's accounts on March 20, 1948, showed Rs. 2,00,000 paid, though only a portion was actually paid later. A sale deed was executed in November 1948, and the company's Board ratified the sale in March 1949. For assessment year 1948-49, the assessee declared Rs. 2 lakhs as capital gains. The Income-tax Officer assessed Rs. 79,494 as capital gains under Section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal confirmed this. The High Court held that transfer by possession was sufficient and the income arose in the year of account.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that title to immovable property, including the factory, plant, machinery, and site, could not pass to the company until a conveyance was executed and registered. Since no such conveyance was executed before April 1, 1948, no sale or transfer of these immovable assets took place before that date. Therefore, capital gains in respect of these items were not assessable for the assessment year 1948-49. Regarding movable assets, title to furniture could pass by delivery, and since possession was delivered on March 17, 1948, capital gains on furniture accrued on that date. Goodwill, being an intangible asset, ordinarily passes with the transfer of the whole business and was not considered transferred before April 1, 1948. The Court found that only furniture was transferred before April 1, 1948. The High Court's reliance on account book entries was deemed irrelevant for determining the date of sale or transfer. The sum of Rs. 79,494 was not assessable as capital gains for the assessment year 1948-49, except for any portion attributable to the capital gain from the transfer of furniture.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, for the purpose of Section 12B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, the sale or transfer of assets, including immovable property, occurred before April 1, 1948, considering the agreement date, possession transfer, account entries, and subsequent sale deed execution and ratification. Assessee's contentions: - The sale took place only in March 1949 when the Directors ratified the agreement, meaning no sale or transfer occurred before April 1, 1948, as required by Section 12B. Revenue's contentions: - Transfer of possession on March 17, 1948, constituted a transfer for the purpose of Section 12B. - The word 'transfer' in Section 12B is broad and covers situations where rights in assets are transferred, giving rise to capital gains. - Entries in account books on March 20, 1948, are relevant for determining the date of sale or transfer. - A distinction between movable and immovable assets should not be allowed at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12B,Section 66

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G H ALAPATIVENKATARAMIAU v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME '!'AX HYDERABAD March 29, 1965 [K. SUBBA RAO, J. c. SHAH .AND S.M. Sucru, JJ.)

Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), s. 12B-Capital Gains-- Passing of Title-What constitutes-Date of sale or transfer -What is.

On 17th March 1948, the assessee entered into an agreement to sell his factory to a company, and on the very same day possession of all the assets of the factory was handed over to the company. A few days later an entry was made in the company's account showing that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- had be€n paid to the assessee and there were corresponding entries in the assessee's accounts also. In fact only a lakh and odd was paid to the asS<Ossee and even that amount was paid only in Ma:·ch 1949. ;n November 1948 a sale deed was executed and registered and in March 1949 the Board of Directors of the Company ratified the sale. For the assessment year 1948-49, the assessee had included in his return, the sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as capital gains. The Income-tax Officer held that the assessee realised an excess of Rs. 79,494/- over and above the original cost, as capital gains asses- sable under s. 1

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

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 66 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →