Case Law Details
The term ‘slump sale’ has been defined to mean a transfer of a business undertaking or a business for a lumpsum consideration with all its assets and liabilities, without values being assigned to individual assets/liabilities. The said term has no other significance and we should not read into and understand that the word ‘sale’, used in the term ‘slump sale’, as a cause/reason to give a restrictive meaning to “slump sale”, i.e. it can only apply to “sales” in a narrow sense and not to “transfers” under Section 2(47).
This is apparent as when we read the proviso and sub-section (1) to Section 50B together and in a harmonious way, it is clear that it applies to all types of “transfers” that can be categorized as a “slump sale”. Sub-section (2) to Section 50B of also refers to transfer of an undertaking or division by way of sale i.e. “slump sale” and prescribes the mode of computing and calculating capital gains on such transactions
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1592/2012
Date of Decision: 30th March, 2012
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
For slump sale transfer of a business… court approval is not required … where In, in the company’s act is that mentioned..Kindly throw light on the subject
Thanks
The points intriguing are: why a revised return was not filed for AY 2009-10 and why assessee did not choose to file return for AY 2010-11 and jumped to settlement?
Another point is when there was loss, no GTI, No TI no tax payable why claim for non applicability of S.115JB was not made.
Is it a a case of frequent change of opinions, lack of stands to be taken by assesses with seriousness and commitment and working in undue haste etc.
TO LEARN AND BE MORE CAREFUL.
Primafacie this appears to be a case which suggest to learn more and be more careful. When a big company like the assessee herein (SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd.) breaks down just at preliminary stage of hearing for scrutiny assessment so as to go for settlement to substitute returned loss of Rs.72 crore with profit of Rs.111 crore – the gap -big 183 crore in AY 2009-10. And when no return was filed for AY 2010-11 and in settlement proposal to settle MAT income of Rs.126 crore. Is it not a case of either carelessless or being over confident when overconfidence breaks down very quickly?.
This is definitely a serious lesson to learn from mistakes of assessee in its return. I hope I have not misunderstood the things due to paucity of information found in the judgment.
My comments are restricted to the information found in preamble of the judgment which states preliminary facts. I have not commented about controversy decided by the court on the issue of slump sale.