2012 (4) TMI 347 - HC - Income Tax

Court rules in favor of assessee on incorrect tax section application; affirms exemption for REC Bond investment.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus M/s. IK. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus M/s. IK. INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Section 50(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Rs.2. Whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of Rs. 4,30,40,600/-Rs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Invocation of Section 50(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The primary issue was whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified in invoking Section 50(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a private limited company, declared long-term capital gains on the sale of property and claimed exemption under Section 54EC by investing in eligible bonds. The AO contested this, arguing that the entire property (land and building) should be treated as a single block of depreciable assets, thus invoking Section 50(2) to treat the capital gains as short-term.The court noted that the assessee had bifurcated the purchase price between land and building and had claimed depreciation only on the building, not on the land. The AO's error was in treating the land as part of the block of depreciable assets, despite no depreciation being allowed on land. The court emphasized that land is not a depreciable asset as per the Income Tax Act, supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT v. Alps Theatre. Thus, Section 50(2) was wrongly invoked by the AO, as it applies only to depreciable assets.2. Entitlement to Exemption under Section 54EC:Given that the court found the AO's invocation of Section 50(2) incorrect, the next issue was whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54EC. The assessee had held the land for more than 36 months, qualifying it as a long-term capital asset. Since the land was not depreciable and the gains were invested in REC Bonds, the entire long-term capital gains were exempt under Section 54EC.The CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal both supported the assessee's claim, stating that the land was a long-term capital asset and the exemption under Section 54EC was rightly claimed. The court upheld this view, affirming that the surplus from the sale of land, held for more than 36 months, qualifies for exemption under Section 54EC.Conclusion:The court answered both substantial questions of law in favor of the assessee, affirming that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 50(2) and that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 54EC. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.