- (1.) The above appeals were filed against the judgment and order dated 17. 07.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the gauhati High Court whereby the Division bench allowed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax being IT. Appeal no. 6 of 2000 and reversed the order of the appellate tribunal dated 04. 04.2000.
(2.) The present case involves an important question of law with regard to the interpretation of Explanation 1 to Rule 2 of the second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
(3.) The appellant company was formed mainly for the purpose of taking over the indian undertakings of several sterling tea companies operating in India. These sterling tea companies were registered in UK and were operating in India. The acquisition of the Indian undertakings of the sterling tea companies was done in accordance with a Scheme of Arrangement under sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act. The said Scheme of Arrangement was granted approval by the High Courts of calcutta and Gauhati. As per the Scheme of Arrangement, all the properties, rights and powers and all liabilities of the sterling companies were transferred to and vested in the appellant company. The Reserve bank of India was the designated authority for granting approval for the price at which the undertakings including the assets were to be taken over by the appellant.;