9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 333 - HC - Income TaxWhether long term loss can be set-off against capital gains u/s 50 from sale of depreciable assets - Held that - Following CIT v. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd 2005 (3) TMI 36 - BOMBAY High Court - By virtue of Section 50 of the Act only the capital gains is to be computed in terms thereof and be deemed to be short-term capital gains. However, this deeming fiction is restricted only for the purposes of Section 50 of the Act and the benefit under other sections of the Act will be available to the gains computed under this section - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 74 of the Income Tax Act for set-off against capital gains arising from assets with allowed depreciation. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 regarding the eligibility of the assessee to set-off capital gains against carried forward long term capital loss under Section 74 of the Income Tax Act. The respondent- assessee had sold meters and transformers, claiming depreciation, and sought to set-off long term capital gains against the carried forward long term capital loss. The assessing officer treated the gain as short-term capital gain due to Section 50 of the Act, disallowing the set-off. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) upheld this decision. On further appeal, the Tribunal allowed the set-off of long term losses against long term capital gains, relying on the decision in CIT v. Ace Builders (P.) Ltd [2006] 281 ITR 210. The Court in Ace Builders (P) Ltd clarified that the deeming fiction under Section 50 is limited to computation and classification as short-term capital gains. The Tribunal found a similar position in the present case, allowing the set-off under Section 74. The Court also referenced a related case, CIT v. Hathway Investments (P.) Ltd, where the appeal by the Revenue was refused, indicating consistency in the application of principles. The Court, based on the precedents and lack of distinguishing features, dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating no reason to entertain the re-framed question of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
