{"id":1828,"date":"1972-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972"},"modified":"2015-11-25T12:29:28","modified_gmt":"2015-11-25T06:59:28","slug":"ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2373, \t\t 1973 SCR (1) 742<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S GUZDAR KAJORA COAL-MINES LTD.  CALCUTTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nHEGDE, K.S.\nPALEKAR, D.G.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2373\t\t  1973 SCR  (1) 742\n 1972 SCC  (2) 436\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax  Act  (11 of 1922), ss. 10(2)  (vi)\t and  10(5)-\n'Original  cost\t to assessee', meaning of-Power\t of  Revenue\nAuthorities  to\t go behind the valuation and  allocation  in\nsale deed.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant purchased on July 1, 1945, the property of  a\ncolliery  company  and the consideration of Rs. 6  lacs\t was\nallocated  in  the sale deed in a certain manner  among\t the\nvarious\t items purchased.  From the assessment year  1946-47\nto  the\t assessment  year  1952-53,  the  appellant  claimed\ndepreciation  on the basis of the written down value of\t the\nassets as per the. assessment record of the  vendor-company,\nand  the  Income-tax officer allowed  depreciation  on\tthat\nbasis.\t For  the  assessment  year  1952-53,  however,\t the\nappellant  contended that the depreciation should have\tbeen\nworked\tout on the basis of balance-sheet valuation  of\t the\nassets\tas  per\t the  audited  accounts\t submitted  by\t the\nappellant  and\tas claimed in their return.   The  Appellate\nAssistant Commissioner held against the appellant.\nOn appeal, the appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the\nIncome-tax  Officer,  and  the\tincome-tax  Officer,   after\ninquiry,  held\tthat  some of the directors  of\t the  vendor\ncompany and the appellant were the same, that the  valuation\nof the depreciable assets had been written up while that  of\nthe  non-depreciable  assets was written down  and  that  no\nprovision  was made for the goodwill of the  vendor  company\neven  though  it  was  making good  profits.   He  made\t the\nallocation of Rs. 6 lacs in a different manner, and included\nthe  goodwill of the vendor also as having been sold to\t the\nappellant,  and made provision for it from out of the Rs.  6\nlacs.\tThe Tribunal accepted the report of  the  Income-tax\nOfficer\t and held that when the settled practice was  sought\nto be reopened by the appellant the Income-tax Officer had a\nright  to see whether there was any justification  ,for\t the\ndeparture,  that the break up of the valuation in  the\tsale\ndeed was in fact arbitrary and that it was unlikely that the\ngoodwill  was provided for in the break up of the  valuation\nin the sale deed.\nOn  reference, the High Court also held that the  Income-tax\nOfficer was competent to go beyond the conveyance and  refix\nthe  valuation\tand  that he bad correctly  worked  out\t the\nvaluation  of the goodwill after examining all the  relevant\nfacts and reports of experts and that the method adopted was\nnot challenged by the appellant.\nDismissing the appeal to this Court,\nHELD  :\t In  the case of an asset,  other  than\t ocean-going\nships,\twith  regard  to  which\t depreciation  allowance  is\nclaimed under's. 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act,  1922,  in\nview of s. 10(5), the original actual cost to\tan  assessee\nof   the  asset\t has to be ascertained for  the\t purpose  of\nfinding out its written\t down  value.\tFor the\t purpose  of\ngetting the benefit of cl. (c) of the\tproviso to s.  10(2)\n(vi)  also  the\t original  cost\t to  the  assessee,that\t is-\ntheperson  who owns the asset and who is being\tassessed,has\nto be ascertained. [748F-H]\n743\nThe  original  cost of a particular asset is a\tquestion  of\nfact  which has to to determined on the evidence or  on\t the\nmaterial  produced  before or available\t to  the  Income-tax\nauthorities.   Any  document or formal deed  mentioning\t the\nconsideration or the cost paid for the purchase of an  asset\nby an assessee would be a piece of evidence and prima  facie\nthe  statements or figures given therein show how  much\t the\ncost of the asset to the assessee is.  But if  circumstances\nexist  showing that a fictitious price has been put  on\t the\nasset or there is fraud or collusion between the vendor\t and\nthe  vendee  and there has been inflation  or  deflation  of\nvalue  for  ulterior purposes it is open to  the  Income-tax\nauthorities  to refuse to accept the price mentioned in\t the\ndeed  or alleged by the assessee and to ascertain  what\t the\nactual original cost was. [749C-E]\nEven if it is not expressly mentioned that goodwill has been\nsold it can be shown and ascertained by evidence whether  it\nhas been purchased or not by the assessee. [749F-G]\nCommissioner  of  income  Tax, Madras v.  The  Buckingham  &\nCarnatic Co.  Ltd.  Madras, [935] I.T.R. 384; Jogta Coal Co.\nLtd.   V. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal<\/a> 36  I.T.R.\n521;  Pindi  Kashmir Transport Co. Ltd. v.  Commissioner  of\nIncome Tax, Lahore 26 I.T.R. 595; and Kalooram Govindranm v.\nCommissioner  of  Income  Tax, Madhya  Pradesh,\t Nagpur\t and\nBhandara,<\/a> 57 I.T.R. 335, referred to.\ntax  Therefore,\t in  the circumstances of this case  it\t was\nopen to the Incomeauthorities to go behind the valuation  as\nalso the allocation given in the   deed of conveyance and to\ndetermine afresh the valuation as well as the\t  allocation\nbetween the depreciable and non-depreciable assets. [749G-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: C.A. Nos. 2132 and  2133  of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated June
\n22, 1965 of the Calcutta High Court in I.T. Reference No. 36
\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n
Sukumar\t Mitra J. L. Hathi, T. A. Ramachandran, K. L.  Hathi
\nand P. C. Kapur, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
V.   S. Desai, R. N. Sachthey and B. D. Sharma, for the res-
\npondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
\nGrover,\t J. These appeals have been brought  by\t certificate
\nfrom a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in two Income tax
\nReferences.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tmost  unfortunate that the  statement  of  the\tcase
\ncontains certain omissions and errors and does not appear to
\nhave  been  drafted  with the usual  care  with\t which\tsuch
\nstatements are drawn.\n<\/p>\n
The  assesses  Guzdar  Kajora  Coal  Mines  Ltd.  which\t was
\nincorporated on July 4, 1945 purchased by a deed of  convey-
\nance  dated  April 3, 1966 executed by\tthe  liquidators  of
\nGuzdar
\n744<\/span>
\nKajora\t Colliery   Co.\t Ltd.  all   the   colliery   lands,
\nhereditaments  and  premises, mines,  minerals,\t powers\t and
\nprivileges  and all ,other hereditaments together  with\t the
\nmachinery  thereon belonging to the latter company.  It\t was
\nstipulated  in the deed of ,conveyance that the sale was  to
\nbe  effective from July 1, 1945.  The consideration for\t the
\ntransfer was Rs. 6 lacs and was allocated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(a)  the value of the machinery plants stores
\n\t      including\t stock of goods grains coals at\t the
\n\t      pithead\t and   other   movable\t  properties
\n\t      appertaining to the said colliery the property
\n\t      in  which\t is capable of passing\tby  delivery
\n\t      being …. Rs. 3,50,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   the\t  value\t  of   the   buildings\t and
\n\t      structures  be  longing to the  said  colliery
\n\t      being Rs. 1,50,000\/-.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   the value of the rest of the  properties
\n\t      appertaining, to the said colliery not capable
\n\t      of   being  passed  by  delivery\t being\t Rs.
\n\t      1,00,000\/-”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Soon after the assessee company came into existence it\ttook
\nover the business from the vendor company and claimed depre-
\nciation for the assessment year 1946-47 on the basis of, the
\nfigures\t the comparative statement of which is given in\t the
\nstatement of the case.\tThis statement contains the  written
\ndown  value  as\t per the assessment  record  of\t the  vendor
\ncompany the valuation of the assets as per the balance sheet
\nof  the\t vendor company and the valuation  by  the  assessee
\ncompany\t as per balance sheet as on December 30, 1945.\t The
\nIncome\ttax  Officer ‘allowed depreciation on the  basis  of
\nthose  figures.\t  This state of affairs continued  till\t the
\nassessment  year 1952-53 when the Income tax  Officer  again
\nallowed\t  depreciation\ton  the\t old  basis.   Before,\t the
\nAppellate  Assistant  Commissioner  the\t assessee  raised  a
\nground ,that the Income tax Officer should. have worked ,out
\nthe  depreciation  figures  on the basis  of  balance  sheet
\nvaluation  of  the  assets  as\tper  the  audited   accounts
\nsubmitted  by  the assessee and as claimed  in\tthe  return.
\nWith regard to the assessment year 1953-54 the same position
\nwas  taken  up.\t  The assessee appealed to  the\t Income\t tax
\nAppellate Tribunal, having failed in its contentions  before
\nthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
\nIt  was\t contended  before the\tAppellate  Tribunal  by\t the
\nassessee  that although it had paid a sum of Rs. 6  lacs  as
\nconsideration for the transfer of the mines the value  taken
\nby   the   department  for  the\t  purpose   of\t determining
\ndepreciation  Was much lower.  It was pointed out  that\t the
\npurchase had been made after obtaining, the
\n745<\/span>
\nopinion of an expert and the assessee was being subjected to
\ngreat  hardship\t depreciation being determined only  on\t the
\nold written down value of the assets and not on the basis of
\nthe  original cost of acquisition.  The\t Appellate  Tribunal
\nwas  of the view that substantial injustice would result  to
\nthe assessee if the depreciation continued to be allowed  on
\nthe old basis if the case of the assessee had any substance.
\nIt was felt that a proper investigation as to the value paid
\nby  the\t assessee  in  taking  over  the  old  company\t was
\nnecessary.   The  matter  was  remanded\t to  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to hold an inquiry after giving an  opportunity  to
\nthe assessee to place all the available material in  support
\nof  its claim.\tWith regard to the assessment  year  1953-54
\nalso the case was remanded with similar directions.
\nThe  Income-tax\t Officer  made a report\t on  July  6,  1960.
\nAccording  to  his  findings  some  of\tthe  Directors\t and
\nShareholders  of  the two companies were the same  and\tthey
\nwere  connected in many ways.  Furthermore the valuation  of
\nthe  depreciable assets and the consumable stores  had\tbeen
\nwritten\t up  whereas the valuation  of\tthe  non-depreciable
\nassets\tlike mines etc. had been written down.\t As  regards
\nthe  report  of the expert A. N. Mitter dated  September  1,
\n1945  he  was unable to contact him in spite  of  making  an
\neffort to do so.  The report made by the second expert S. N.
\nMullick dated October 19, 1955 and January 30, 1957 together
\nwith the clarification made by him on November 20, 1959 were
\nconsidered by him.  He also examined 8. N. Mullick under  S.
\n37  of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922,\t hereinafter  called
\nthe  ‘Act’.  He came to the conclusion that the\t vendor\t had
\nbeen making good profits but no provision had been made\t for
\nthe  goodwill of the company in the business and if  such  a
\nprovision  had\tbeen made it would have worked\tout  at\t Rs.
\n2,56,960\/-  having  regard  to\tthe  profits  made  for\t the
\npreceding  four years.\tHe made an allocation of Rs. 6\tlacs
\nas follows
\n “(1) Good-will\t\t\t\t  Rs. 2,56,960\/-\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Mines  and\t development as per  balance-sheet  of\tM\/s.
\nGuzdar Gajore Colliery Co. Ltd. as at
\n30-6-45.\t\t\t\t   Rs.2,48,323\/-\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Stores and stock\t\t\t    Rs.60,744\/-\nand  worked out the value of other\ndepreciable assets at\t\t\t    Rs.\t  33,973\/-\"\n<\/pre>\n
Before\tthe  Appellate\tTribunal the remand  report  of\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer was assailed on behalf of the assessee on
\nvarious\t grounds.   The\t Tribunal  observed  that  when\t the
\nassessments for the years 1946-47 and 1947-48 were made\t the
\nassessee
\n13-Ll52SupCI\/73
\n746<\/span>
\nchose  to  give\t the valuation in  its\tbalance-sheet  on  a
\ncertain basis which was accepted and no appeal was taken  to
\nthe  higher  authorities and although the rule\tof  estoppel
\ncould not be applied but “acquiscence of the assessee  shows
\nwhich  way the wind blew”.  When a settled thing was  sought
\nto  be\treopened the Income-tax Officer had a right  to\t see
\nwhether\t there\twas  any  Justification\t for  the   “radical
\ndeparture from the settled practice”.  It was held that\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officer  was  to go behind\tthe  valuation.\t  As
\nregards the goodwill the contention raised on behalf of\t the
\nassessee  was that the same was included in the item of\t one
\nlakh mentioned in the sale deed.  According to the report of
\nMr.  Mullick  it was included in the item of  Rs.  3,50,006.
\nThis is what the Tribunal proceeded to observe:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  seems  to  us, the simple  truth  of\t the
\n\t      matter  is that the figure of Rs.\t 3,50,000\/-,
\n\t      Rs.   1,50,000\/-\tand  Rs.   1,00,000\/-\twere
\n\t      arbitrarily put. and there was no clear cut or
\n\t      understandable  break  up\t of  valuation\t (?)
\n\t      clause  3 of the break up in the deed  of\t 3rd
\n\t      April  1946, which talks of the value  of\t the
\n\t      rest  of\tthe properties appertaining  to\t the
\n\t      said  colliery not capable of being passed  by
\n\t      delivery\tbeing valued at\t Rs.  1,00,000\/shows
\n\t      that these properties which had I not been  in
\n\t      clause  1 and 2 were comprised in this and  it
\n\t      seems  too  much\tto  say\t that  good-will  is
\n\t      included in this. it would be more true to say
\n\t      that good-will was thought of or conceived  of
\n\t      but not provided for in the break up of
\n\t      valuation”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The appeals were consequently dismissed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The,  assessee\tmoved  the Tribunal  for  referring  certain
\nquestions  of law to the Tribunal.  The\t following  question
\nwas framed by the Tribunal and referred to the High Court :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of   the\tcase  the  Income-tax  Officer\t was
\n\t      competent to go beyond the conveyance and\t fix
\n\t      a valuation of the assets on his own ?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court was of the view that the Income-tax  Officer
\nwas competent to make a fresh computation as to the value of
\nthe assets of the assessee if the facts and circumstances of
\na  particular case justified following such a course.\tEven
\non  the\t question  of  valuation of  the  good-will  it\t was
\nobserved
\n\t      ”\t Further,  it  should  be  remembered\tthat
\n\t      although\tthe Income-tax Officer has made\t the
\n\t      valuation\t of the goodwill by working out\t the
\n\t      normally accepted method of taking the profits
\n\t      of the four preceding years, this
\n\t      747<\/span>
\n\t      method of calculation or this normal  practice
\n\t      has not been challenged by the assessee.\t The
\n\t      revenue  has. examined all the relevant  facts
\n\t      of  the  case  including the  reports  of\t Mr.
\n\t      Mitter  and Mr. Mullick and the  Tribunal\t has
\n\t      agreed with those findings of facts and we  do
\n\t      not  think  that we can interfere\t with  those
\n\t      findings”.\n<\/p>\n
The  answer  to\t the  question referred\t was  given  in\t the
\naffirmative.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel for the assessee has assailed the  decision
\nof the High Court on a number of grounds.  It has been urged
\ninter  alia  that the High Court had not kept  in  view\t the
\ngeneral\t and well established principle that  the  statement
\nwith  regard  to valuation contained in\t a  formal  document
\nshould\tbe prima facie accepted as cornet.  There can be  no
\njustification,\tit  has been pointed out, for any  court  or
\nTribunal “to rip up a transaction not impeached as dishonest
\nand  not proved to be such, merely because the\tcompany\t may
\nhave paid an extravagant price for their property”.  A great
\ndeal of emphasis has been laid on behalf of the assessee  on
\nthe report submitted by the experts justifying the valuation
\ngiven  in the deed of conveyance.  In the absence of  fraud,
\ncollusion,  inflation  or  false transaction  made  with  an
\nulterior  purpose  the Income tax authorities, it  is  said,
\nwere  precluded from going behind the agreement of  purchase
\nin   determining  the  purchase\t price\tfixing\t their\t own
\nvaluation.   The  other\t point canvassed on  behalf  of\t the
\nassessee is that good-will was not included in the valuation
\ngiven  in  the deed of conveyance nor was it  ever  intended
\nthat  any  good-will of the business should be sold  by\t the
\nvendor\tcompany.  This contention, however, appears  to\t run
\ncounter\t to  What was argued before the High Court  and\t the
\nTribunal  nor can it be said to be covered by  the  question
\nwhich was referred.  On the case as put before the Appellate
\nTribunal and the.  High Court and the question referred with
\nregard to the two assessment years in question we are unable
\nto  see\t any  such error or  infirmity\tthat  would  Justify
\ninterference by us in these appeals._
\nIt has been strenuously urged on behalf of the assessee that
\nsince  the decision of the Tribunal or the High Court  could
\nnot operate as res judicata for other assessment years\twith
\nregard to which assessments are still pending, the  assessee
\nwould be entitled to raise all the points which are relevant
\nwith regard to the question of valuation for the purpose  of
\ndetermining depreciation.  We have been pressed to  indicate
\nbroadly\t the  principles for future guidance as it  will  be
\nopen  to the assessee to raise all the points  relevant\t for
\nthe  purpose of determination of the amount of\tdepreciation
\nallowance  in  the assessments which are still\tpending\t and
\nhave not been finally disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
748<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 10(2) (vi) of the Act, to the extent it is  material
\nis as follows
\n\t      “(2)  Such profits or gains shall be  computed
\n\t      after   making   the   following\t allowances,
\n\t      namely:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (vi)  in\trespect\t of  depreciation  of\tsuch
\n\t      buildings machinery, plant or furniture  being
\n\t      the   property   of  the\t assessee,   a\t sum
\n\t      equivalent,  where the assets are ships  other
\n\t      than ships ordinarily plying on inland waters,
\n\t      to  such\tpercentage  on\tthe  original\tcost
\n\t      thereof to the assessce as may in any case  or
\n\t      class of cases be prescribed and in any  other
\n\t      case,  to such percentage on the written\tdown
\n\t      value thereof as may in any case ,or class  of
\n\t      cases be prescribed;————–\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided that–\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)……….\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)……….\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   The aggregate of all allowances in\tres-
\n\t      pect  of depreciation made under\tthis  clause
\n\t      and  clause (vi-a) or under any  Act  repealed
\n\t      hereby,  or under the Indian  Income-tax\tAct,
\n\t      1886  (II of 1886), shall, in no\tcase  exceed
\n\t      the  original  cost  to the  assessee  of\t the
\n\t      buildings,  machinery, plant or furniture,  as
\n\t      the case may be;”\n<\/p>\n
Keeping in view sub-s. (5) of S. 10 of the Act, the original
\nactual\tcost  to the assessee of the asset  with  regard  to
\nwhich\tdepreciation   allowance  is  claimed  has   to\t  be
\nascertained  for the purpose inter-alia of finding  out\t the
\nwritten down value in case of assets other than ocean  going
\nships.\tFor the purpose of getting the benefit of clause (c)
\nof the proviso to sub-section (2)(vi) also the original cost
\nhas also to be ascertained.  The Privy Council laid down  in
\nCommissioner  of  Income tax, Madras v. The  Buckingham\t and
\nCarnatic  Co., Ltd.  Madras(1), that the word “assessee”  in
\ns.  10(2)(vi) of the Act refers to the person who  owns\t the
\nassets and who is being assessed and depreciation  allowance
\nhas  to\t be based on the original cost of such\tproperty  to
\nsuch  person.  This principle was laid down in a case  where
\nthe  assessee had acquired the business of another  assessee
\nand  it was emphasised that the original cost to  be  consi-
\ndered  was  the original cost to the person  who  was  being
\nactually assessed and not the original cost of those  assets
\nto the previous
\n\t (1)   [1935] I.T.R. 33
\n\t 749<\/span>
\nowner  of  the business.  Reference was made  to  the  above
\ndecision of the Privy Council in the judgment of this  Court
\nin  Jogta Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income<\/a>  tax\tWest
\nBengal(1) and it was observed
\n\t       “We  do not think that there is any doubt  on
\n\t      the   wording  of\t the  section  or   on\t the
\n\t      interpretation  that has been put\t upon  those
\n\t      words  that the cost to be calculated for\t the
\n\t      purpose of depreciation allowance is the\tcost
\n\t      to  the  assessee and not to  the\t person\t who
\n\t      makes the sale……….\n<\/p>\n
Now the original cost of a particular asset is a question of
\nfact  which  has  to be determined on the  evidence  or\t the
\nmaterial  produced  before or available to  the\t Income\t tax
\nauthorities.   Any  document or formal deed  mentioning\t the
\nconsideration or the cost paid for the purchase of an  asset
\nby an assessee would be a piece if evidence and prima  facie
\nthe statements or figures given therein would show how\tmuch
\nthe  cost  of  the  asset  to  the  assessee  is.   But\t  if
\ncircumstances exist showing that a fictitious price has been
\nput on the asset or there is fraud or collusion between\t the
\nvendor\tand  the  vendee and there  has\t been  inflation  or
\ndeflation-of-value  for ulterior purposes it is open to\t the
\nIncome\ttax  authorities  to  refuse  to  accept  the  price
\nmentioned  in  the deed or alleged by the  assessee  and  to
\nascertain  what\t the  actual cost  was:\t See  Pindi  Kashmir
\nTransport Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Lahore (2 )
\nand Kalooram Govindram v. Commissioner of Income tax  Madhya
\nPradesh,  Nagpur  and  Bhandara(3).  In this  view’  of\t the
\nmatter it is open to the Income tax authorities to determine
\nand  to the assessee to show. whether the good-will  of\t the
\nbusiness  is or is not included in the consideration or\t the
\nprice paid for the acquisition of the asset.  In other words
\neven if it is not expressly mentioned that goodwill has been
\nsold it can be shown and ascertained by evidence whether the
\nsame  has  been\t purchased  or not  by\tthe  assessee.\t The
\nexpression “good-will” has been considered and explained  by
\nthis  Court in S. C. Cambatta & Co. P. Ltd. v.\tCommissioner
\nExcess Profits Tax, Bombay<\/a>(4) and nothing more need be\tsaid
\nabout  it.   The  principles stated by us are  by  no  means
\nexhaustive and are mainly illustrative.
\nKeeping in view the facts of the present case we may make it
\nclear  that  if\t circumstances exist for  going\t behind\t the
\nvaluation  as  ‘also  the allocation given in  the  deed  of
\nconveyance it was and is open to the Income tax\t authorities
\nto determine the valuation as well as the allocation between
\ndepreciable and non-depreciable assets.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 36 I.T.R. 521    (2) 26 I.T.R. 595\n(3) 57 I.T.R. 335    (4) 41 I.T.R. 500\n750<\/span>\n<\/pre>\n
The  present  appeals, however, must fail  for\tthe  reasons
\nstated\tearlier and are hereby dismissed.  We make no  order
\nas to costs in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t      Appeal dismissed.\n751<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2373, 1973 SCR (1) 742 Author: A Grover Bench: Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: M\/S GUZDAR KAJORA COAL-MINES LTD. CALCUTTA Vs. RESPONDENT: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALCUTTA DATE OF JUDGMENT31\/07\/1972 BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1828","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2717,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972","datePublished":"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972"},"wordCount":2717,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972","name":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 31 July, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-25T06:59:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-guzdar-kajora-coal-mines-ltd-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-31-july-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Guzdar Kajora Coal-Mines Ltd. … vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, … on 31 July, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1828"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1828\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1828"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1828"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1828"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}