2003 (12) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Capital gain transfer of short-term capital asset - acquisition of asset - Whether for the purpose of section 50(2) the assets in respect of which depreciation had been allowed under section 32(1) proviso being the amount equal to the actual cost of acquisition that being the extent of depreciation actually allowed the whole of the amount received by the assessee when the assessee sold those depreciated assets is required to be treated as a capital gain arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets Question is answered in affirmtive

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of sale proceeds of capital assets.
2. Interpretation of Section 50 of the Income-tax Act.
3. Application of depreciation rules to depreciable assets.
4. Eligibility for indexing the cost of acquisition under sections 48 and 49.

Issue 1: Taxability of sale proceeds of capital assets:
The case involved the sale of books by a senior advocate, with a claim that the balance of the sale proceeds was not taxable as it represented the sale proceeds of capital assets. The Assessing Officer, appellate authority, and Tribunal rejected this claim, relying on Section 50 of the Income-tax Act. The court affirmed that the books sold were capital assets, and the depreciation claimed under Section 32(1) was relevant to determine the taxability of the sale proceeds.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 50 of the Income-tax Act:
Section 50 provides a special provision for the computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 50(2) which deal with the written down value of a block of assets. It was emphasized that the written down value is crucial in determining the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets, especially in cases where assets have been depreciated.

Issue 3: Application of depreciation rules to depreciable assets:
The court examined the definitions and provisions related to depreciation under Section 32 and Section 43(6) of the Act. It was clarified that the written down value of depreciable assets is determined based on the actual cost and depreciation allowed. In this case, since the full value of the cost of acquisition was allowed as depreciation, the written down value of the asset became "nil," leading to the entire sale proceeds being treated as capital gains.

Issue 4: Eligibility for indexing the cost of acquisition under sections 48 and 49:
The court dismissed the assessee's claim for indexing the cost of acquisition under sections 48 and 49, stating that the provisions of Section 50 modify the computation of capital gains for depreciable assets. The court highlighted that the intent of introducing Section 50 was to prevent owners of depreciable assets from claiming indexing benefits, as it could result in multiple benefits to the assessee, including potential capital loss scenarios.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sale proceeds of the depreciable assets were taxable as capital gains, and the assessee was not entitled to indexing benefits under sections 48 and 49. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and emphasized the application of depreciation rules in determining the taxability of depreciable assets.