{"id":13345,"date":"2020-10-28T09:45:18","date_gmt":"2020-10-28T09:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-h-rajan-and-h-kannan-1999-236-itr-42-153-ctr-11-sc\/"},"modified":"2020-10-28T09:45:18","modified_gmt":"2020-10-28T09:45:18","slug":"cit-v-h-rajan-and-h-kannan-1999-236-itr-42-153-ctr-11-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/cit-v-h-rajan-and-h-kannan-1999-236-itr-42-153-ctr-11-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT v. H. Rajan and H. Kannan (1999) 236 ITR 42\/153 CTR 11 (SC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>Facts<\/h3>\n<p>D was carrying on the business of a transporter as an individual up to financial\u00a0 year 1966-67. From 01.04.1967, he converted his proprietary business into a partnership firm, taking his two nephews as partners and giving each 1\/4th share\u00a0 in the firm.<\/p>\n<p>The ITO treated such conversion of proprietary into partnership as transfer of assets for less than fair market value and taxed the difference between the market value determined by him and the book value as capital gains. The Commissioner granted part relief to the assessee by reducing the quantum of capital gains. On further appeal, the Tribunal concluded that on conversion of individual business into a partnership it did not result in any transfer as envisaged by section 45 read with section 2(47).<\/p>\n<p>On a reference application, the following question was referred to the Madras High Court: \u201cWhether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it has\u00a0 been rightly held that there was no transfer of assets in the assessee\u2019s case within the meaning of section 2(47) read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961?\u201d The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no transfer of assets and, therefore, no capital gains could be levied. <strong><em>CIT v. H. Rajan and H. Kannan [1984] 149 ITR 545 (Mad) (HC). <\/em><\/strong>TheRevenue approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>Issue<\/h3>\n<p>Two questions arose (1) Whether it has been rightly held that there was no transfer of assets on conversion of proprietary business into partnership firm?, and (2) If no, then would such a transfer result in there being any gains or profit taxable under section 45 of the Act? (additional question raised by the Supreme Court)<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>Views<\/h3>\n<p>In the case of <strong><em>Sunil Siddharthbhai v.\u00a0 CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC)<\/em><\/strong>, introduction\u00a0 of capital assets into a partnership firm was held to be a transfer of capital asset under section 2(47) on the ground that the exclusive interest of a partner in personal asset was reduced and the said asset became an asset of the firm, in which the other partners got an interest. However, it also held that onsuch a<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>transfer, no consideration was received within the meaning of section 48 and, therefore, no profit or gain accrued to the transferor and thus, there was no capital gains which could be taxed.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h3>Held<\/h3>\n<p>In so far as the first question, the Court held that the exclusive business of the assessee was imparted with a character of a partnership business with induction\u00a0\u00a0 of two nephews of the assessee, which was a transfer of the assets under section 2(47) by the assessee in favour of his nephews. However, for the second question, the Court concluded that such a transfer did not yield any profits or\u00a0\u00a0 gains to the assessee which could be subjected to tax under section 45. For\u00a0 this,\u00a0 the Court followed its decision in <strong><em>Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT[1985] 156 ITR 509 (SC). <\/em><\/strong>(AY. 1968-69) (CA No. 3644 of 1983 dt. 12-2-1998)<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>Editorial: <\/em><\/strong>After amendment in sub-section (3) in section 45 by the Finance Act, 1987, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm\/AOP\/BOI as the value of the capital asset is deemed to be the \u2018full value of the consideration\u2019 received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset by an assessee towards his capital contribution in the firm\/AOP\/BOI. However, the ratio in so\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 far as the second question is concerned remains relevant for cases where no consideration is received by the assessee of transfer of a capital asset and the Revenue seeks to invoke the deeming provisions of sections 50CA and 50D of the Act. Also see <strong><em>CIT v. Texspin\u00a0 Engg. &amp; Mfg. Works\u00a0 (2003) 263 ITR 345 (Bom) (HC)\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>for the same proposition.<\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cOur ability to reach unity in diversity will be the beauty and the test of our civilization.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&#8211; Mahatma Gandhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>.S. 45: Capital gains \u2013 Conversion of proprietary business into firm \u2013 Amounts to transfer of interest in property to other partners \u2013 No consideration received \u2013 No capital gains tax [S. 2(47),  48]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-3tf","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13345"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13346,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13345\/revisions\/13346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}