News Update

French Parliament passes controversial anti-terror law empowering authorities to shut places of worship and restrict freedom of movementGST - CBEC clarifies on movement of goods within State and from one to another on approval basis + also notifies officers empowered to accept or reject application for GST PractitionerLinking Aadhaar with UAN - EPFO launches service for speedy servicesPM interacts with 380 Directors & Dy Secretaries in Central Govt; advises them to break silos with innovative waysCBEC notifies new Customs exchange ratesCBDT launches 'Online Chat' facility on official website to answer taxpayers' queriesJaipur & Srinagar rated best airports in world in 20 lakh to 50 lakh passenger category: AAI -Registration of Charitable bodies - CBDT seeks inputs to new provision in I-T ActST Not fn. 41/2012-ST - Renting of airport premises at departure module has a direct nexus with 'export sale' being made by duty free shops Refund correctly granted: CESTATIndia earns Rs 13800 Cr forex from tourismGST - Govt notifies list of supplies as deemed exports such as supplies to EoU, against EPCG and Advance Authorisation + notifies Forms for refund to exportersOver 100 preferential tax regimes dismantled across world: OECD (See 'TII Brief')Impact of Brexit - UK needs to keep close ties with EU for sustaining future living standards: OECD (See 'TII Brief')Delay in filing GSTR-3B - Interest waiver only for July month, not for AugustAhmedabad ITAT invites suggestions before goes paperless by Dec 15, 2017China proposes special treatment to SMEs in anti-dumping cases; WTO Members for solution within existing frameworkI-T- Department cannot tax capital gains tax in guise of lifting corporate veil, when there is mere transfer of shares of company and no stamp duty was paid towards plot of land: ITATST - Preparation of examination results on computers - as service is rendered 'in relation to' education, same is exempted by Notif. No. 14/2004-ST: CESTATCX - Element of excise duty on which CENVAT Credit was availed is not includible in AV of manufactured goods - duty demand, attributed to CVD which was not included in AV, is unsustainable: CESTATGovt allows Cipla to import morphine, codeine and baine for use in products to be exportedCBEC reassigns legacy cases pending with Commissioner(Appeals) to reduce litigationGovt to make revised quality standards for caustic soda mandatoryFDI SOP makes it clear no proposal to be sent to Department of Revenue & MEAMinister asks builders to improve living conditions of construction workersJoblessness marginally decreases in Q2 in OECD areasChandigarh Airport Customs seizes gold biscuits worth Rs 39 lakhApplications invited for post of Member at SAFEMA TribunalIndian billionaire Lakshmi Mittal contributes aid of USD 25 mn to Harvard Univ to enhance engagement with South Asian countriesPM urges corporate to use CSR funds to strengthen AyurvedaGST Council's decisions for small businessmen (See 'TOG Insight' in Taxongo.com)Entry Tax on goods imported from abroad - explained furtherGST regime - continuation of area based incentiveST - Limitation prescribed u/s 11B of CEA, 1944 is not applicable to refund claim in respect of service tax paid under a mistake of law: HCI-T - Just because RBI treats 'provision for NPA' as losses/expenses, it will not override Income tax Act while deciding justification of such 'provision' u/s 36(1)(vii): HCCX - Promotional pack of Maggi Noodles supplied free of cost either by the appellant or by Tata Tea Ltd - Valuation u/s 4 of CEA, 1944 is proper: CESTATOver 69 lakh subscribers join Pension Yojana with contribution of Rs. 2690 CrAyurveda's market size to surpass USD 8 bn by 2022: MinisterIndian women scientists praised; Govt policy for all support: Minister
 
I-T - Capital gains - An asset once treated as part of 'block of assets' will always remain a part of the block even if it ceases to be put to use for business in some previous years: HC

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 12, 2017: THE issue is - Whether, for the purpose of Section 50, an asset once treated as a part of the 'block of assets' u/s 2(11), will always remain a part of the block even if it ceases to be put to use for business in some previous years. YES is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The Assessee, an individual, was carrying on weaving work on job basis in all her three concerns, viz. Gitanjali Silk Mills; Kalpana Silk Mills and M/s J. R. Enterprises. There were eight looms in M/s.Gitanjali Silk Mills and four each in other concerns. It was Assessee's case that the industrial gala where these looms were oprational, was purchased by Assessee for Rs.1,39,500/-. Of these two galas, the assessee sold one for Rs.6,60,000/- after thirteen year and earned profit of Rs.6,23,645/-. This profit was treated by Assessee as long term capital gain and deduction u/s 48(2) was claimed thereon. The AO however noted that Assessee had not only claimed depreciation on the gala for A.Ys 1981-82 to 1986-87 but also claimed deduction u/s 80(J) for A.Ys 1981-82 to 1985-86. He was of the view that once depreciation had been allowed, the asset would remain a business asset and the profit earned on sale of that asset would be taxed u/s 50. According to the AO, though the section was effective from 2nd November 1986, it did not state that provisions of this section would apply only to those assets where depreciation has been allowed after 1st April 1988 and in fact it referred to old act. The AO found that neither depreciation nor the written down value was shown separately for the galas, and even the claim of personal asset was not correct because the assessee had claimed society charges of Rs.62,935/- in the P&L A/c pertaining to the two galas. The AO also noted that Assessee herself had shown "profit on sale of factory gala". With these findings, the AO concluded that gain arising on sale of industrial gala was short term capital gain u/s 50. On appeal, the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT upheld the findings of AO.

High Court held that,

++ we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had correctly understood the concept of 'block of assets'. The argument has been and throughout that the expression 'block of assets' means a group of assets falling within the assets enumerated in Section 2(11). That section does not make any distinction between different units or different types of businesses, which may be carried out by the assessee. Only requirement in respect of an asset which forms part of assets, is that same percentage of depreciation should be prescribed. Once the law enables claiming of depreciation on the block of assets, then, it is not possible to agree with the assessee that between A.Y.1986-87 to A.Y.1991-92, when gala no.210 was not being used by her for the purpose of business, and the concept of depreciation of block of assets was introduced vide 1986 amendment with effect from 1st April 1988, that cannot be applied. The appellate order took a view that an asset cannot move out of the block of assets, once depreciation is allowed on that particular asset. In the present case, initially depreciation was claimed and allowed on both galas. It was only during last four years that no depreciation was claimed or allowed, as the assets were not used for the purpose of business. Even though the assets were not used for the business of assessee, they continued to be part of block of assets on which depreciation was allowed. The Tribunal in affirming this view of the FAA, had passed a detailed order. The assets being gala nos.210 and 211 were purchased as industrial galas together. The assessee claimed depreciation on the galas together and written down value was also shown together. Though depreciation has been allowed in the past on gala no.210 and plant & machinery in gala no.210 was shifted to gala no.211 and no depreciation was claimed thereon subsequently, nonetheless, the depreciation on block of assets stipulated in Section 2(11) is applicable. Both the galas are of the same nature and they form one class of assets. Once depreciation has been granted on gala no.210 and even if business operations were not carried out therefrom, merely at the convenience of the assessee, it does not cease to be a business asset;

++ it is to be noted that Section 50 has to be understood with reference to general scheme of assessment on sale of capital assets. The Kerala High Court referred to the fact that the assets covered by Section 50 are depreciable assets forming part of block of assets, as defined u/s 2(11). The Kerala High Court on reading of these provisions took the view that once the building was acquired by the assessee and in respect of which depreciation was allowed to it as a business asset, no matter the nonuser disentitles the assessee for depreciation for two years prior to the date of sale, still, this asset does not cease to be a part of block of assets. Therefore, the questions proposed by assessee, have to be answered in favour of Revenue.

(See 2017-TIOL-2142-HC-MUM-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS