Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. The issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the transfer of the non T & D business of the assessee to its subsidiary by a scheme of arrangement as approved by the High Court of Calcutta in C.P.No.164 of 2006 dated 22.3.2006 could be brought under Section 50B of the Act. This provision is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale. The assessee was non-suited primarily on the ground that they had accepted the transfer to be a sale falling within the provisions of Section 50B of the Act, as the assessee approached the Bond Issuing Authorities for investment in http://www.judis.nic.in certain bonds in terms of Section 54EC of the Act to avoid payment of capital gains tax.

23. Section 50B of the Act is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale. Sub-Section (1) of Section 50B of the Act reads as follows :

“Any profits or gains arising from the slump sale effected in the previous year shall be chargeable to income-tax as capital gains arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.”

24. We see no force in the contention of Mr. Suresh Kumar. Firstly, it is not necessary for us to decide any wider question or larger controversy. The judgment of the Delhi High Court would apply provided the transfer is by way of a sale. Before the Delhi High Court, the facts were that the petitioner company was http://www.judis.nic.in engaged in project financing through term loans and leasing in specified sectors. For the assessment year 2009-10, the petitioner had disclosed loss of more than Rs. 76 crores in their return. No return was filed for the assessment year 2010-11. The book loss was more than Rs. 72 crores. An application was filed before the Settlement Commission for the two assessment years and disclosing the additional income. The Settlement Commission passed an order and which is termed as final order in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court, determining and deciding various questions which are raised in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the only aspect was that of taxability of Rs. 375 lakhs under section 50B of the Income-tax Act as capital gains on "slump sale" paid under the scheme of arrangement to the petitioner by its subsidiary. The Settlement Commission held that the amount of Rs. 375 lakhs received by the petitioner from its subsidiary on transfer of its project finance business and assets based on financing business including its shareholding in SREI Insurance Broking Pvt. Ltd. was taxable under section 50B of the Act as a slump sale.

27. There is no necessity for us to analyze the circumstances in which section 50B was inserted in the statute book. Before us, the issue as to whether the conclusions reached by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motors and General Stores (Pvt) Ltd. (supra) would still hold good or that they would not be the enabling principles after the amendment to the Income-tax Act does not arise at all. We proceed on the footing that the statute was amended with some specific object and purpose. However, we are in agreement with the learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee before us that the applicability of section 50B would have to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. If the transfer is by way of sale, only then it could be termed as a slump sale and then section 50B would be attracted. It is in these circumstances and going by the facts of the present case that we have decided the present appeal. No larger question or wider controversy need be decided as we are of the opinion that even the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court is distinguishable on facts.