9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether heirloom jewellery constitutes 'personal effects' within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and if the sale thereof gives rise to taxable capital gains. Analysis: The case involved the assessment of an ex-ruler who sold heirloom jewellery and claimed it was exempt from taxable capital gains. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held the gains taxable, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority (AAC) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the jewellery as corporate property, not personal effects, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The ex-ruler argued that the jewellery was personal effects and not taxable under section 2(14) of the Act. The High Court analyzed the definition of 'capital asset' under section 2(14) of the Act, which excludes personal effects held for personal use from being taxed as capital gains. The Court noted that the jewellery was used by the ex-ruler on ceremonial occasions and held for personal use, thus falling under the category of personal effects. The Court distinguished a previous Supreme Court case involving different assets used for worship, emphasizing the intimate connection between the effects and the person of the assessee. The Court concluded that the heirloom jewellery in question was indeed the personal effects of the ex-ruler held for personal use, and therefore, not liable to be included in the term 'capital asset.' Consequently, the profits and gains arising from the sale of the jewellery were not taxable under section 45 of the Act. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by not considering the jewellery as personal effects, ruling in favor of the assessee. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the reference.
|
