9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the indenture dated 7th December 1946, effected a sale or transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 12B(1) of the Income-tax Act? 2. Whether section 12B of the Income-tax Act imposing income-tax on capital gains was ultra vires? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the indenture dated 7th December 1946, effected a sale or transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of section 12B(1) of the Income-tax Act? The first question concerns whether the lease transaction dated 7th December 1946, amounted to a transfer of a capital asset under section 12B(1) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee argued that a lease does not constitute a transfer of a capital asset and that the salami received should not be taxed under section 12B. The court analyzed section 12B(1), which states: "The tax shall be payable by an assessee under the head 'Capital gains' in respect of any profits or gains arising from the sale, exchange or transfer of a capital asset." The term "capital asset" is defined in section 2(4A) of the Act as "property of any kind held by an assessee," excluding certain items like stock-in-trade and agricultural land. The court rejected the narrow interpretation that "transfer" should only mean a permanent transfer of title. Instead, it held that "transfer" includes both permanent and temporary transfers of title, including leases. The court stated, "A lease of land is a transfer of interest in the land and creates a right in rem; and there is a transfer of title in favour of the lessee though the lessor has a right of reversion after the period of the lease terminates." Consequently, the lease granted by the assessee on 7th December 1946, was deemed a transfer of a capital asset, making the gains taxable under section 12B. Issue 2: Whether section 12B of the Income-tax Act imposing income-tax on capital gains was ultra vires? The second issue examined the constitutional validity of section 12B. The assessee argued that the Central Legislature lacked the authority to enact such legislation under item 55 of List I, 7th Schedule, of the Government of India Act, which pertains to "Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies." The court noted that the legislation should be evaluated based on its "pith and substance," meaning its true nature and effect. Section 12B imposes a tax on profits arising from the sale, exchange, or transfer of capital assets, allowing deductions for the actual cost of the asset and transaction expenses. The court held that the tax is on the capital value of the assets, regardless of whether the transaction is a lease or an outright sale, and falls within the ambit of item 55 of List I. The court referenced the Bombay High Court decision in Sir J.N. Duggan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which upheld the validity of section 12B, aligning with the view that it falls within item 55. Thus, the court concluded that section 12B is constitutionally valid, and the second question was answered in favor of the Income-tax Department. Conclusion: Both questions referred to the High Court were answered in favor of the Income-tax Department and against the assessee. The court held that the lease transaction constituted a transfer of a capital asset under section 12B, and section 12B itself was constitutionally valid. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference, with a hearing fee of Rs. 250.
|
