Taxpublishers.in - InterestingDecision/Flash_16304.htm - Tax Publishers Your Tax Solution Hub

Share via Whatsapp 242 Views


The Tax Publishers Supreme Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 7524/Mum/2007, dt. 29-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2224 (Mum-Trib) Slump sale or itemized sale *Facts:* Assessee had sold its BOPP film unit to one Xpro India Ltd. on as is where is condition for 14 crores, then offered 10.3 crores as short term capital gain under slump sale provisions section subsequently pleaded it as itemized sale by filing a revised return. The individual assets were marked with consideration and for current assets it will be at a mutually agreed price at the time of conveyance. This did not find ground with the assessing officer who taxed it as slump sale which was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on facts. On further appeal: Held against the assessee that it was a slump sale on facts. Note: The decision makes an important read because the entity has sold it to Xpro on slump sale and was decided against the assessee. In Flash mailer 170 DCIT v. M/s Xpro India Ltd./ITA No.214/Kol/2011/assessment year 2005-06/Kolkata ITAT/Dated 23-3-2016 it appears that the same unit was sold by Xpro in the very next assessment year as itemized sale and the company walked away with the short term capital gain benefit. It is uncommon for any one to buy something and immediately divest that too on and in Xpro case the assessee got away holding that it was an itemized sale. So the fact of the revised return itself appears to have been a post facto thought after Xpro has sold it on itemized sale. Perhaps these were group companies.

The Tax Publishers

Supreme Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No. 7524/Mum/2007, dt. 29-4-2016] : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2224 (Mum-Trib)

Slump sale or itemized sale

Facts:

Assessee had sold its BOPP film unit to one Xpro India Ltd. on as is where is condition for 14 crores, then offered 10.3 crores as short term capital gain under slump sale provisions section subsequently pleaded it as itemized sale by filing a revised return. The individual assets were marked with consideration and for current assets it will be at a mutually agreed price at the time of conveyance. This did not find ground with the assessing officer who taxed it as slump sale which was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on facts. On further appeal:

Held against the assessee that it was a slump sale on facts.

Note: The decision makes an important read because the entity has sold it to Xpro on slump sale and was decided against the assessee. In Flash mailer 170 DCIT v. M/s Xpro India Ltd./ITA No.214/Kol/2011/assessment year 2005-06/Kolkata ITAT/Dated 23-3-2016 it appears that the same unit was sold by Xpro in the very next assessment year as itemized sale and the company walked away with the short term capital gain benefit. It is uncommon for any one to buy something and immediately divest that too on and in Xpro case the assessee got away holding that it was an itemized sale. So the fact of the revised return itself appears to have been a post facto thought after Xpro has sold it on itemized sale. Perhaps these were group companies.