CIT v. Akzo Noble India Ltd. (2019) 181 DTR 121 / 310 CTR 255 / (2020)423 ITR 208 / (2021) 276 Taxman 259 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains—Transfer of assets—Depreciable asserts– Transfer of business undertaking-Holding company to subsidiary company-Assets of undertaking included intangibles like goodwill, intellectual property etc. their cost of acquisition could not be determined-Charging S. 45 for computation of capital gains did not apply-Not possible to compute capital gains-Not liable to capital gains tax. [S. 2(42A), 48, 50, 50B]

Assessee had claimed long term capital loss u/s. 48 in respect of transfer of business undertaking.AO treated assets as depreciable  and applied S. 50 of the Act and  treated the  transaction as a STCG. CIT (A) held that consideration was not chargeable to capital gains tax. Tribunal held that entire businesses of undertakings were transferred to its subsidiary. Transfer was on an as was where basis. Transfer was genuine, although it was by a holding to a subsidiary company definition of slump sale as per s. 2(42A) was incorporated into statute w.e.f. 1st April, 2000. S.45 provides that profits or gains from transfer of a capital asset would be chargeable to income tax as capital gains. This gain was deemed to be income in FY in which transfer was effected. Undoubtedly, transfer of undertaking in question was a transfer of a collection of almost entire assets of undertaking and hence, transfer of capital. Since collection of assets of undertaking included intangibles like goodwill, intellectual property etc. their cost of acquisition could not be determined. Since this could not be done, charging S.  45 for computation of capital gains did not apply, hence, it was not possible to compute capital gains. High Court affirmed the order of the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. (AY.1994-95)