Depreciation for Net Worth in Slump Sale: High Court Clarifies Section 50B Calculation

The High Court held that the written down value for computing net worth in a slump sale under Section 50B should consider depreciation that would have been allowable, not just the depreciation actually claimed. The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the Assessee's approach and overturning the ITAT decision. The interpretation of Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) was clarified, emphasizing its application only when part of the block of assets is sold, not the entire block.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Computation of net worth in a slump sale under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) in the case of a slump sale involving the entire block of assets.
3. Interpretation of the term "written down value" and its implications for capital gains calculation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Computation of net worth in a slump sale under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

The core issue revolves around the method of computing the net worth of a business undertaking transferred by way of a slump sale. The Assessee transferred its entire business to another company for Rs. 2.75 crores and computed the capital gains under Section 50B by considering the cost of assets without accounting for depreciation, as none was claimed for the previous year. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed with this approach, arguing that depreciation allowable under Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) should be deducted even if not claimed. The ITAT, however, held that the written down value should be based on depreciation actually allowed, not on what could have been allowable.

2. Applicability of Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) in the case of a slump sale involving the entire block of assets:

The Revenue contended that Section 43(6)(c)(i)(C) should be applied to compute the written down value, even when the entire block of assets is transferred. The ITAT disagreed, stating that this provision applies only when part of the assets within the block are transferred. The High Court examined the statutory scheme and concluded that Clause C is intended for cases where part of the block of assets is sold, not the entire block. Applying Clause C in cases where the entire block is sold would result in a fictitious block of assets in the books, which contradicts the statutory scheme.

3. Interpretation of the term "written down value" and its implications for capital gains calculation:

The High Court analyzed the statutory scheme and the purpose of introducing Clause C in Section 43(6)(c)(i). It was noted that Clause C aims to address the computation of the written down value when part of the assets within a block are sold. The Court emphasized that the statutory scheme under Section 32 and Section 50 does not support retaining a fictitious block of assets when the entire block is sold. The Court also clarified that the reference to Clause C in Explanation 2 to Section 50B is for incorporating a method of computation for the written down value of the block of assets transferred, not for determining the block of assets remaining with the Assessee.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the ITAT erred in its interpretation of Clause C and its application in the context of Section 50B. The Court held that the written down value for the purpose of computing net worth under Section 50B should be determined by reducing the actual cost of the asset by the depreciation that would have been allowable, not just the depreciation actually claimed. Consequently, the question of law was answered in favor of the Revenue, and the appeal was allowed. The Assessee's method of computation was rejected, and the decision of the ITAT was overturned.

---