The transfer of an “ongoing business” can be simply called a transfer of a current business, which can be exercised by the buyer as an independent entity. However, the internationally recognized guidelines) issued by His Majesty`s Revenue – Customs (HRMC) to treat the transfer of transactions as a current business are also considered- An agreement covering the intention to sell a business with its assets is not a transportation, but only a sales contract. A business transfer contract contains many articles that describe the terms of sale and the goods and services transferred. There are a few ways to buy and sell a business, and the organizational structure of a business can result in additional obligations. A business divestment agreement is structured in such a way that it results in a complete sale of assets and liabilities from one entity to another. It is a form of purchase and ownership contract that records information about the sale of the company and its assets. It describes the nature of the transfer, the type of sale, the terms of sale and the terms of the transfer. The business transfer contract lists assets, commitments, capital, contracts, client lists, leases, staff insurance, new labour rights, inventory, tax issues, copyright and patents. When a contract is executed with the intention of not constituting an immediate transfer of the sale of the land, that instrument is considered a sales contract and not as a transport intended to calculate the impact on stamp duty. In the case of Abbott Healthcare Private Limited v.
Raj Kumar Prasad- Ors, the fact that a typical BTA would affect stamp duty is well regulated.  where the BTA was considered duly stamped. Moreover, it is not disputed that such a transfer would amount to transport, since the deed that the company transferred, including its value, was classified as “transportation” by the tax authorities in the case of Anil Purushottam Kakad/Tax Recovery Officer. The Apex court continued in the Hindustan Lever-Anr case. Vs. State of Maharashtra – Anr.  That a High Court order the approval of an enterprise agreement regime under Section 394 of the Corporations Act, 1956 (the “Companies Act”) is a “transportation” and is therefore subject to stamp duty.