RATE OF TAX ON DEEMED SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS U/S 50

‘Special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets

(1) where the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the asset together with the full value of such consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of any other capital asset falling within the block of the assets during the previous year, exceeds the aggregate of the following amounts, namely: –
(i) expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer or transfers;
(ii) the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year; and
(iii) the actual cost of any asset falling within the block of assets acquired during the previous year,

such excess shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets;

(2) where any block of assets ceases to exist as such, for the reason that all the assets in that block are transferred during the previous year, the cost of acquisition of the block of assets shall be the written down value of the block of assets at the beginning of the previous year, as increased by the actual cost of any asset falling within that block of assets, acquired by the assessee during the previous year and the income received or accruing as a result of such transfer or transfers shall be deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets.’

In a situation where an asset which is otherwise held for more than three years but is deemed short-term capital asset, on application of section 50, for the reason such an asset forming part of the block of assets and depreciated is transferred, the issue has arisen as to the rate of tax applicable to the gains on transfer of such assets – whether such gains would be taxable in the manner prescribed u/s 112 at a concessional rate of 20%, or at the regular rates prescribed for the total income. While a few benches of the Tribunal have held that the rate applicable would be the regular rate applicable to total income including the short-term capital gains, in a number of decisions various benches of the Tribunal have taken the view that the rate applicable on such deemed short-term capital gains would be the rate applicable to long-term capital gains, i.e., the rate of 20% prescribed u/s 112. This controversy has been discussed in the BCAJ Vol. 48-B, November, 2016, Page 51, but the latest decision in Voltas Ltd. has added a new dimension to the conflict and some fresh thoughts on the subject are shared herein.

THE RATHI BROTHERS’ CASE

During the previous year relevant to A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee sold its office premises for Rs. 98,37,000. Since depreciation had been claimed on such asset in the past, the assessee computed its capital gains u/s 50 at Rs. 93,40,796, disclosed such capital gains as short-term capital gains but computed tax thereon at the rate of 20%.

It was contended before the A.O. that the tax rate u/s 112 was being applied on the gains treating the gains as long-term capital gains, though the resultant capital gains were in the nature of short-term capital gains as per the provisions of section 50 based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. 281 ITR 210. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of P.D. Kunte & Co. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 4437/Mum/05 dated 10th April, 2008).

However, the A.O. observed that the said ITAT decision was in the context of eligibility of exemption u/s 54EC in respect of capital gains computed u/s 50 on transfer of an asset held for more than three years. It was pointed out to the A.O. that in response to a miscellaneous application filed in that case the order was modified to hold that on the reasoning of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ace Builders (Supra), it naturally followed that even the tax rate applicable while bringing capital gain to tax would be as per the provisions of section 112.

However, attempting to distinguish this interpretation, the A.O. stated that section 50 was a special provision inserted to compute capital gains in respect of depreciable assets with an intention to prevent dual concession to the assessee in the form of depreciation as well as concessional rate of tax. It was also emphasised by the A.O. that even in the case decided by the Bombay High Court, the larger issue involved was the eligibility to claim deduction u/s 54E against capital gains arising on transfer of an asset on which depreciation was being claimed, even if such gains were to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 50.

The A.O. accordingly taxed the capital gain as short-term capital gain and declined to apply the tax rate prescribed u/s 112.

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal, holding that section 50 was enacted with the objective of denying multiple benefits to the owners of assets. According to him, the rationale behind enacting such a deeming provision u/s 50 was that the assessee had already availed benefits in the form of depreciation in case of depreciable assets, and it was not equitable to extend dual benefit of depreciation as well as concessional tax rate of 20% to capital gains arising on transfer of depreciable assets.

On behalf of the assessee it was argued before the Tribunal that since the asset was held for more than three years, it was a long-term capital asset as defined in section 2(14), and capital gain computed even u/s 50 is to be treated as long-term capital gain. The Bombay High Court in Ace Builders (Supra) had held that section 50 is a deeming provision, hence the same is to be interpreted to the extent to achieve the object of the said provision. Reliance was also placed by the assessee on the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of P.D. Kunte & Co. (Supra).

The Tribunal refused to accept the argument that in case of Ace Builders the Bombay High Court had held that even capital gain computed u/s 50 is to be treated as long-term capital gain. According to the Tribunal, the High Court had explained that if the capital gain was computed as provided u/s 50, then the capital gains tax would be charged as if such capital gain had arisen out of a short-term capital asset. The Tribunal also did not follow the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of P.D. Kunte & Co. on the ground that this ground had remained to be adjudicated in that case.

The Tribunal therefore held that such capital gains was not eligible for the 20% rate of tax applicable to long-term capital gains u/s 112.

A similar view has been taken by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the cases of ACIT vs. SKF Bearings India Ltd. (ITA No. 616/Mum/2006 dated 29th December, 2011), SKF India Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITA No. 6461/Mum/2009 dated 24th February, 2012) and Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 181 TTJ 384 (Kol.).

THE VOLTAS CASE

In this case, the assessee had sold buildings which were held for more than three years. The assessee claimed that the capital gains on the sale of the buildings should be taxed at 20% u/s 112 instead of at 30%, the rate applicable to short-term capital gains.

It was argued on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the case of Smita Conductors Ltd. vs. DCIT 152 ITD 417. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court (actually of the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the Bombay High Court) in the case of CIT vs. V.S. Dempo Company Ltd. 387 ITR 354 and the decision of the Supreme Court (actually of the Bombay High Court) in the case of CIT vs. Manali Investment [219 Taxman 113 (Bombay)(Mag.)] and it was argued that both Courts had held that the deeming provision of the section could not be extended beyond the method of computation of the cost of acquisition involved.

It was argued on behalf of the Revenue that section 50, being a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets, specifically provides in the concluding paragraph that the income accrued or arising as a result of such transfer shall be deemed to be income from transfer of a short-term capital asset. It was submitted that the language of the Act was very clear and unambiguous. It was argued that there would have been scope for ambiguity only if the term ‘short term’ was not used. It was submitted that when the Act provides that such gain would be gain arising from short term capital asset, there was no reason why the term ‘short term’ appearing in that provision should be regarded as superfluous. It was argued that when the Act was so clear there could not be any dispute about the rate of tax applicable for short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal analysed the provisions of section 50 and the decisions in the cases of V.S. Dempo (Supra) and Manali Investment (Supra). It noted the observations of the Bombay High Court (actually the Supreme Court) that section 50 is only restricted for the purpose of sections 48 and 49 as specifically stated therein, and the fictions created in sub-sections (1) and (2) have limited application only in the context of the mode of computation of capital gains contained in sections 48 and 49. The fictions have nothing to do with exemption that is provided in a totally different provision, viz., section 54EC. The Tribunal cited with approval the observations of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ace Builders (Supra) and noted that the Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts had taken a similar view in the cases of CIT vs. Polestar Industries 221 Taxman 423 and CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P) Ltd. 262 ITR 587, respectively. It also noted the Supreme Court (Bombay High Court) decision in the case of Manali Investment where the Supreme Court (Bombay High Court) permitted set-off of brought forward long-term capital loss against gains computed u/s 50 on sale of an asset which had been held for more than three years.

The Tribunal observed that the higher Courts had held that the deeming fiction of section 50 was limited and could not be extended beyond the method of computation of capital gain and that the distinction between long-term and short-term capital gains was not obliterated by this section. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground.

A similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the cases of Smita Conductors vs. DCIT 152 ITD 417 (Mum.), Poddar Brothers Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA 1114/Mum/2013 dated 25th March, 2015), Castrol India Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA 195/Mum/2012 dated 18th October, 2016], Yeshwant Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA 782/Pun/2015 dated 9th October, 2017], DCIT vs. Eveready Industries Ltd. [ITA 159/Kol/2016 dated 18th October, 2017], BMC Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA 1722/Pun/2017 dated 12th March, 2020), Mahindra Freight Carriers vs. DCIT, 139 TTJ 422 and Prabodh Investment & Trading Company vs. ITO (ITA No. 6557/Mum/2008). In most of these cases, the view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Smita Conductors (Supra) has been followed.

OBSERVATIONS

This aspect has been clarified by various Courts as under:

In Ace Builders (Supra), the Bombay High Court has observed:
‘21. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is seen that section 45 is a charging section, and sections 48 and 49 are the machinery sections for computation of capital gains. However, section 50 carves out an exception in respect of depreciable assets and provides that where depreciation has been claimed and allowed on the asset, then, the computation of capital gain on transfer of such asset under sections 48 and 49 shall be as modified under section 50. In other words, section 50 provides a different method for computation of capital gain in the case of capital assets on which depreciation has been allowed.

22. Under the machinery sections the capital gains are computed by deducting from the consideration received on transfer of a capital asset, the cost of acquisition, the cost of improvement and the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer. The meanings of the expressions “cost of improvement” and “cost of acquisition” used in sections 48 and 49 are given in section 55. As the depreciable capital assets have also availed depreciation allowance under section 32, section 50 provides for a special procedure for computation of capital gains in the case of depreciable assets. Section 50(1) deals with the cases where any block of depreciable assets do not cease to exist on account of transfer and section 50(2) deals with cases where the block of depreciable assets cease to exist in that block on account of transfer during the previous year. In the present case, on transfer of depreciable capital asset the entire block of assets has ceased to exist and, therefore, section 50(2) is attracted. The effect of section 50(2) is that where the consideration received on transfer of all the depreciable assets in the block exceeds the written down value of the block, then the excess is taxable as a deemed short-term capital gain. In other words, even though the entire block of assets transferred are long-term capital assets and the consideration received on such transfer exceeds the written down value, the said excess is liable to be treated as capital gain arising out of a short-term capital asset and taxed accordingly.
…………………………

25. In our opinion, the assessee cannot be denied exemption under section 54E because, firstly, there is nothing in section 50 to suggest that the fiction created in section 50 is not only restricted to sections 48 and 49 but also applies to other provisions. On the contrary, section 50 makes it explicitly clear that the deemed fiction created in sub-section (1) and (2) of section 50 is restricted only to the mode of computation of capital gains contained in sections 48 and 49. Secondly, it is well established in law that a fiction created by the Legislature has to be confined to the purpose for which it is created. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. D. Hanumantha Rao 1998 (6) SCC 183. In that case, the Service Rules framed by the bank provided for granting extension of service to those appointed prior to 19th July, 1969. The respondent therein who had joined the bank on 1st July, 1972 claimed extension of service because he was deemed to be appointed in the bank with effect from 26th October, 1965 for the purpose of seniority, pay and pension on account of his past service in the army as Short Service Commissioned Officer. In that context, the Apex Court has held that the legal fiction created for the limited purpose of seniority, pay and pension cannot be extended for other purposes. Applying the ratio of the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the fiction created under section 50 is confined to the computation of capital gains only and cannot be extended beyond that.’

These observations of the Bombay High Court in paragraph 25 of the Ace Builder’s decision have been reproduced and approved of by the Supreme Court in the V.S. Dempo case, thereby confirming that the fiction of section 50 is confined to the computation of capital gains only and cannot be extended beyond that.

However, in paragraph 26, the Bombay High Court has observed:
‘26. It is true that section 50 is enacted with the object of denying multiple benefits to the owners of depreciable assets. However, that restriction is limited to the computation of capital gains and not to the exemption provisions. In other words, where the long-term capital asset has availed depreciation, then the capital gain has to be computed in the manner prescribed under section 50 and the capital gains tax will be charged as if such capital gain has arisen out of a short-term capital asset, but if such capital gain is invested in the manner prescribed in section 54E, then the capital gain shall not be charged under section 45 of the Income-tax Act.’

The Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the SKF cases as well as the Pune bench of the Tribunal in the Rathi Brothers case has relied on these observations for holding against the assessee. However, since the issue before the Bombay High Court was regarding the availability of the exemption u/s 54E, the observations regarding charge of capital gains tax should be regarded as the obiter dicta. Further, the Tribunal in these cases did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in the V.S. Dempo case, where it had approved of the fact that the applicability of section 50 is confined to the computation of capital gains only.

The observations of the Gauhati High Court, which had also been approved by the Supreme Court in the V.S. Dempo case, can also be referred to:

‘7. Section 2(42A) defines “short-term capital asset” which means a capital asset held by an assessee for not more than thirty-six months immediately preceding the date of its transfer. Thus the assets, which have been already held for more than 36 months before it is transferred, would not be short-term capital assets. Section 2(29A) defines “long-term capital asset” means a capital asset which is not short-term capital asset. Therefore, the asset, which has been held for more than 36 months before the transfer, would be long-term capital asset. Section 2(29B) provides for “long- term capital gain”, which means capital gain arising from the transfer of a long-term capital asset.

8. All capital gains on the transfer of the capital asset whether short-term capital asset or long-term capital asset except otherwise provided in mentioned sections in section 45 of the Income-tax Act are chargeable to income-tax. How the capital gains shall be computed is laid under sections 48 and 49 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The capital gain arising from the transfer of short-term assets under section 48 (as it stands at the relevant time) are wholly assessable to be as ordinary income after deduction as provided under section 48(1)(e) whereas the capital gain arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets are partially assessable as provided under section 48(b), which reads:

“(b) where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (hereinafter in this section referred to, respectively, as long-term capital gain and long-term capital asset) by making the further deductions specified in sub-section (2).”

9. Thus by virtue of this section, long-term capital assets would be entitled for further deduction as provided in sub-section (2) of section 48. Section 49 is a provision whereunder the general principle is laid down for computing capital gains and certain exceptions are engrafted in the section. Thus, sections 48 and 49 provide for the principles on which the capital gains shall be computed and the benefit which can be given for transfer of long-term capital assets while calculating the capital gain by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 48 wherein the assessee transferring long-term capital assets can claim further deduction as specified under sub-section (2). Section 50…….

10. By virtue of this section, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (42A) of section 2, where the short-term capital asset has been defined, if the depreciation is allowed, the procedure for computing the capital gain as provided under sections 48 and 49 would be modified and shall be substituted as mentioned in section 50. Section 50 only provides that if the depreciation has been allowed under the Act on the capital asset then the assessee’s computation of capital gain would not be under sections 48 and 49 of the Income-tax Act and it would be with modification as provided under section 50. Section 54E is the section which has nothing to do with sections 48 and 49 or with section 50 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein the mode of computation of capital gain is provided.
…………………..

12. Section 50 is a special provision where the mode of computation of capital gains is substituted if the assessee has claimed the depreciation on capital assets. Section 50 nowhere says that depreciated asset shall be treated as short-term assets, whereas section 54E has an application where long-term capital asset is transferred and the amount received is invested or deposited in the specified assets as required under section 54E.’

The observations of the Madras High Court in the case of M. Raghavan vs. Asst. CIT 266 ITR 145, in the context of the purpose of section 50, are also relevant:

‘22. It would appear that the object of introducing section 50 in order to provide different method of computation of capital gain for depreciable assets was to disentitle the owners of such depreciable assets from claiming the benefit of indexing, as if indexing were to be applied, there would be no capital gain available in most cases for being brought to taxation. The value of depreciable asset in most cases comes down over a period of time, although there are cases where the sale value of a depreciated asset exceeds the cost of acquisition. The result of allowing indexing, if it were to be allowed, is to regard the cost of acquisition as being very much higher than what it actually is, to the assessee. If such boosted cost of acquisition is required to be deducted from the amount realised on sale, in most cases it would result in a negative figure, resulting in the assessee being enabled to claim a capital loss. Clearly, it could not have been the legislative intent to confer such multiple benefits to the assessees selling depreciable assets.’

Therefore, from the above it is clear that the deeming fiction of section 50 is for the limited purpose of computation in case of sale of depreciable assets where the computation has to be in the same manner as that applicable to short-term capital assets, i.e., without indexation of cost and with substituted cost of acquisition, being the written down value of the block of assets. The deeming of short-term capital gains can therefore be viewed in the context of the manner of computation of the capital gains, i.e., without the indexation of cost available u/s 48.

It may also be noted that one of the factors that weighed with the Pune bench of the Tribunal in Rathi Brothers for not following the Mumbai Tribunal decision in the P.D. Kunte & Co. case (which was the first case on the issue) was that this issue had not been decided in the P.D. Kunte & Co. case. However, the Tribunal failed to take note of the order in the Miscellaneous Application in the P.D. Kunte & Co. case (MA 394/Mum/2008 dated 6th August, 2008), where the Tribunal had allowed this ground by observing as under:

‘On the reasoning of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (Supra), it naturally follows that even the tax rate applicable while bringing capital gain to tax will be as per the provisions of section 112 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to apply the same’.
 
The decision of the Pune bench of the Tribunal in the said case would have been different had the amended decision delivered in the Miscellaneous Application been brought to its notice.

The better view of the matter therefore is the view taken by the Tribunal in the cases of P.D. Kunte & Co., Smita Conductors, etc., that the provisions of section 50 do not take away the benefit of the concessional rate of tax, where available, for the capital gains based on its period of holding.