| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
March 22, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Capital asset treated as stock-in-trade of proprietary business has to be valued at market value
The assessee, a partner of a firm, received stock-in-trade on dissolution of the firm. The stock was used by the assessee to start a proprietorship business. In the assessment of the firm, the Tribunal held, following ALA Firm 189 ITR 285 (SC), that the option to value stock at the lower of cost or market was available only to a going concern and as the firm had dissolved, the stock had to be valued at the market value. However, in the assessment of the assessee’s proprietorship business, it was held that as the proprietorship concern had acquired the stock from the dissolved firm and continued the same business, the opening stock could not be valued at a price higher than the book value as the assessee had not paid anything in excess of the said amount. On appeal to the High Court, HELD allowing the appeal:
When a partnership firm is dissolved and the erstwhile partner receives stock, it is a capital asset in his hands. When that asset is introduced into a business as stock, it gets converted into stock-in-trade. The value of this stock will have to be the market value on the date of introduction. The Tribunal’s reasoning that the assessee cannot value the stock introduced in the business at market value because that was not the price she paid for it is flawed because if the assessee on having received her distributed share of stock of jewellery from the dissolved firm had sold it, and thereafter commenced her proprietorship business of jewellery again; within short span; by buying the jewellery from the market from the proceeds of stock sold on dissolution of the erstwhile firms, the stock of the proprietorship concern would without doubt be valued at market value. The same principle would apply if the assessee used her share of the stock obtained from the dissolved firm in the new business.
Note: The conversion of capital asset into stock is a “transfer” u/s 2(47)(iv) & 45(2) though the principle of valuation in
Shirinbai Kooka 46 ITR 86 (SC) applies to the computation of business profits. See also
DLF Universal vs. DCIT 128 TTJ 121 (Delhi)(SB) where the introduction of stock-in-trade as capital contribution into a firm was held to attract s. 45(3)
Related Posts:
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court) The startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot…
- PCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Now, coming to the aspect viz the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search action against a third person. We may note that the AO has used this statement on oath recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third…
- New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
Leave a Reply