Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2024 (9) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (9) TMI 155 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Interpretation of tax law regarding the taxation of sale proceeds of assets claimed for deduction under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Determination of whether sale proceeds of assets, on which 100% depreciation was claimed and allowed, should be taxed as short-term capital gain under Section 50 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two Tax Appeals arising from a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the Assessment Year 1993-94. The main question of law was whether the sale proceeds of assets, on which deduction under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act was claimed and allowed, should be taxed as short-term capital gain under Section 50 of the Act.
2. The appellant- assessee claimed depreciation on Oxygen Gas Cylinders and Glow Sign Boards purchased for leasing to earn rental income, treated each unit as an item of plant, and claimed 100% depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
3. The Assessing Officer rejected the depreciation claim, stating that the transaction on the last day of the accounting year cannot constitute business and Glow Sign Boards were not basic apparatus fulfilling the definition of plant.
4. The CIT(A) allowed the depreciation claim, stating that the transaction was within the law, and the appellant was entitled to the deduction of the whole cost of Glow Sign Boards under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.
5. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating each Glow Sign Board as a plant. Another issue was the taxability of the sale proceeds of Gas Cylinders as short-term capital gain, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the Tribunal based on the decision of the Bombay High Court and fair concession by the assessee.
6. The appellant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the decision of the Bombay High Court had been reversed by the Supreme Court, stating that assets purchased before March 31, 1995, and claimed for 100% depreciation could not be taxed under Section 50 of the Act.
7. The High Court noted the Supreme Court's decision, which held that assets purchased before March 31, 1995, and depreciated at 100% did not form part of the block of assets and were not taxable as short-term capital gains under Section 50.
8. Consequently, the High Court allowed both Tax Appeals, holding that the sale proceeds of assets claimed for deduction under Section 32(1)(ii) were not required to be taxed as short-term capital gain under Section 50 of the Act, contrary to the Tribunal's decision.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates