Lump sum lease surrender payment taxed as capital gains under Income-tax Act

The High Court of Calcutta ruled that a lump sum amount received by a lessee from a lessor for surrendering leasehold rights is subject to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the surrender of a valuable leasehold right for compensation constitutes a clear case of capital gains, even without a cost of acquisition of the leasehold interest. The decision favored the Revenue, overturning the Tribunal's ruling, and remanded the case for further consideration on other points.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The interpretation of whether a lump sum amount received by a lessee from a lessor, part of which relates to premature surrender of leasehold rights, is liable to capital gains tax.

Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed the question of law referred by the Tribunal under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved a resident company that had leased land for development and subsequently received a lump sum amount for surrendering its leasehold interest. The Income-tax Officer initially treated the transaction as a transfer, resulting in short-term capital gains. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, but the Tribunal overturned it, stating that the case did not fall within the charging section due to the absence of a cost of acquisition of the leasehold interest. The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the surrender of a valuable leasehold right for compensation constituted a clear case of capital gains under section 45 of the Act.

The Court highlighted that leasehold interest is an interest in land acquired through an agreement, distinct from self-created goodwill. The compensation received for surrendering the lease was deemed a transfer of a capital asset, including compulsory acquisition by the Government. Therefore, the transaction was subject to capital gains tax. The Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the Revenue, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for further consideration on all other points.

The judgment was delivered by SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J., with agreement from BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.

---