S. 50B: Transfer of assets via amalgamation without monetary consideration is not a “slump sale”

S. 2(42C) defines a ‘slump sale’ to mean the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities in such sales. A plain reading of s. 2(42C) makes it clear that to qualify as a slump sale, two conditions have to be satisfied viz., (i) there must be transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of sale and (ii) the sale should be for a lump sum consideration without values being assigned to the individual assets and liabilities. The presence of money consideration is an essential element to a transaction of sale. If the consideration is not money but some other valuable consideration it may be an exchange or barter but not a sale. In the present case, as no monetary consideration was received by the assessee for transfer of the assets and liabilities of the manufacturing division to Novapan Industries Ltd, the transaction is not a “slump sale” and does not attract s. 50B (Motors and General Stores 66 ITR 692 (SC), R.R. Ramakrishna Pillai 66 ITR 725 & Avaya Global Connect 26 SOT 397 (Mum) followed)

S. 147/ 151: Merely writing “approved” in the sanction form without recording satisfaction renders the reopening void

S. 147 and 148 are a charter to the Revenue to reopen earlier assessments and are, therefore protected by safeguards against unnecessary harassment of the assessee. They are sword for the Revenue and shield for the assessee. S. 151 guards that the sword of S. 147 may not be used unless a superior officer is satisfied that the AO has good and adequate reasons to invoke the provisions of S. 147. The superior authority has to examine the reasons, material or grounds and to judge whether they are sufficient and adequate to the formation of the necessary belief on the part of the assessing officer. If, after applying his mind and also recording his reasons, howsoever briefly, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the AO’s belief is well reasoned and bona fide, he is to accord his sanction to the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the instant case, we find from the perusal of the order sheet which is on record, the Commissioner has simply put “approved” and signed the report thereby giving sanction to the AO. Nowhere the Commissioner has recorded a satisfaction note not even in brief. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner has accorded sanction after applying his mind and after recording his satisfaction (Chhugamal Rajpal 79 ITR 603 (SC) & United Electrical Co 258 ITR 317 (Del) followed)

S. 153A: In case of completed assessments, addition can be made only if incriminating document found during search

There are three possible circumstances that emerge on the date of initiation of search u/s 132 (1): (a) proceedings are pending; (b) proceedings are not pending but some incriminating material found in the course of search indicating undisclosed income and/or assets and (c) proceedings are not pending and no incriminating material has been found. In circumstance (a), since the proceedings are pending, they are abated and the AO gets a free hand to make the assessment. In circumstance (b), there is no question of abatement as the proceedings are not pending and the AO has to pass an assessment order u/s 153A to assess the undisclosed income. In circumstance (c), the AO has to pass an assessment order though as there is no incriminating material no income can be assessed. On facts, as the assessments were completed and there was no incriminating material found during the search, the AO was not entitled to make any addition (All Cargo Global Logistics 137 ITD 287 (Mum)(SB), Anil Kumar Bhatia 80 DTR 169 (Del), Pratibha Industries & Gurinder Singh Bawa followed)

S. 32: Sale & lease transactions by banks are genuine and eligible for depreciation

S. 32 allows depreciation if the asset is “owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business“. There is no requirement that the asset must be used by the assessee himself. It is sufficient if the asset is utilized for the purpose of business of the assessee. The argument, relying on McDowell 154 ITR 148 (SC), that Sale & Lease Back transactions are a devise for lowering the tax effect cannot be accepted. Sale & Lease Back transactions are genuine and cannot be considered to be sham. By virtue of the judgement in Cosmo Films Ltd 338 ITR 266 (Del), the contrary judgements in MidEast 87 ITD 537 (Mum) (SB) and Induslnd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) are impliedly reversed (ICDS Ltd 350 ITR 527 (SC) & Development Credit Bank Ltd (ITAT Mum) followed)

The real object of the entering into the sale and lease back transaction so far as Konkan Railway is concerned is to raise funds. The transaction of sale of the asset to the assessee bank and its lease back to Konkan Railway cannot be separated. It was not possible for Konkan Railway to sell out the railway system. Thus, the sale transaction was merely on paper and to facilitate the financial arrangement by the assessee to Konkan Railway without involving any real intention of transfer of the assets. The terms of the lease agreement are only to secure the interest of the bank till the recovery of the full amount along with the interest. The assessee cannot exercise the real and actual ownership over the asset keeping in view the facts and circumstances and nature of the asset in question. Further, under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 read with RBI circular dated 19.2.1994, banking companies can undertake the activities of equipment leasing but these are required to be treated on par with loans and advances. Therefore, the activity of equipment leasing permitted by the RBI is only in the nature of finance lease. The terms and conditions specified by the RBI for income recognition of lease transactions are also on par with the manner in which a loan transaction is treated. In view of the said circular, there is no scope for treating the instant lease agreement as that of an operating lease (IndusInd Bank 135 ITD 165 (Mum) (SB) followed; ICDS 350 ITR 527 (SC) distinguished on the basis that the lease there was not by a Bank but by a NBFC).

There is a distinction between a case where the software is supplied along with hardware as part of the equipment and there is no separate sale of the software and a case where the software is sold separately. Where the software is an integral part of the supply of equipment, the consideration for that is not assessable as “royalty”. However, in a case where the software is sold separately, the consideration for it is assessable as “royalty”. On facts, the assessee had received a license to use the copyright belonging to the non-resident. The non-resident supplier continued to be the owner of the copyright and all other intellectual property rights. As there was a transfer of the right to use the copyright, the payment made by Reliance to Lucent was “for the use of or the right to use copyright” and constituted “royalty” under s. 9(1)(vi) and Article 12(3) of the India-USA DTAA.