COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASR vs. M/SSACHDEV AND SONS

ITA/237/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01014269200311 May 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE SATPAL,THE TAXING OFFICER2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar (appellant-revenue) against the order dated 30.06.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar. The assessment year in question was 1998-99. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent was M/s Sachdeva and Sons (EOU). The dispute revolved around whether a transfer had occurred within the meaning of Section 45(4) read with Section 2(47) of the Act.

What did the High Court hold?

The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with Circular No. 279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 08.03.2016, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the revenue did not wish to press the present appeal as the tax effect involved was less than `20 lacs. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survived therein. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken as an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. The legal issue as claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is no transfer within the meaning of section 45(4) read with section 2(47) of the Act, whereas section 45(4) includes transfer of capital asset by the firm otherwise than on its dissolution and also when section 2(47) is fully applicable in this case? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded. Revenue: The revenue argued that Section 45(4) includes the transfer of a capital asset by a firm otherwise than on its dissolution, and that Section 2(47) is fully applicable in this case. The appeal was filed raising this substantial question of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 45(4),Section 2(47)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.05.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Amritsar .......Appellant Versus M/s Sachdeva and Sons (EOU) ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL,J.

This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), against the order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, in ITA No. 55(ASR)/2002, for the assessment year 1998-99, raising the following substantial question of law: Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there is no transfer within the meaning section 45(4) read with section 2(47) of the Act, whereas section 45(4) include transfer of capital asset by the firm otherwise than on its dissolution and also

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 45(4)

All 107 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →