TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the transaction amounted to sale of plant and machinery only or a package lease of land, building and plant and machinery; (ii) whether the lease transaction amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether the consideration was chargeable to capital gains and whether section 50 applied.
Issue (i): Whether the transaction amounted to sale of plant and machinery only or a package lease of land, building and plant and machinery.
Analysis: The terms of the lease deed, the valuation report and the surrounding circumstances showed that the arrangement covered the industrial unit as a whole and not merely plant and machinery. The revenue failed to establish, with cogent material, that the document was a sham or that only plant and machinery had been sold. The mere fact of some continued use of portions of the premises by the assessee or its concerns was insufficient to negate the lease.
Conclusion: The transaction was a package lease of land, building and plant and machinery, and not a sale of plant and machinery only.
Issue (ii): Whether the lease transaction amounted to a transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: A lease of capital asset for consideration carries the ordinary meaning of transfer because it involves parting with the right to enjoy the property for the lease period. The inclusive definition in section 2(47) is wide, and the reference to immovable property in section 269UA did not control or restrict the meaning of transfer for section 45 purposes. The leasehold rights in the property were therefore capable of being treated as transferred.
Conclusion: The lease transaction amounted to a transfer within section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue (iii): Whether the consideration was chargeable to capital gains and whether section 50 applied.
Analysis: Once the transaction was held to be a sale of leasehold rights in a capital asset, the receipt fell within section 45. However, section 50 could not be applied to the entire consideration because land is not a depreciable asset and the ownership of the assets remained with the assessee in the manner found by the Tribunal. The capital gain, therefore, had to be recomputed in accordance with law and consequential issues had to be re-adjudicated.
Conclusion: The receipt was chargeable under section 45, but section 50 was held inapplicable on the facts as found.
Final Conclusion: The assessment was required to be redone on the correct legal footing by treating the arrangement as a transfer of leasehold rights in the industrial unit, while excluding an across-the-board application of section 50.
Ratio Decidendi: A lease of capital asset for consideration may constitute a transfer for capital gains purposes, and the true nature of the transaction must be ascertained from the document read with surrounding circumstances, but section 50 cannot be invoked unless the transferred asset is a depreciable asset or the statutory conditions for that provision are otherwise satisfied.
TaxTMI 
