2025 (10) TMI 696 - AT - Income Tax

Gains on sale of depreciable assets treated long-term for tax-rate purposes; s.112 applies despite s.50 computation; s.263 order quashed

ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that gains on sale of depreciable assets, though treated as short-term under s.50 for computation, retain their character as ... Revision u/s 263 - whether the tax rate applicable to LTCG in terms with section 112 of the Act can be applied to a depreciable asset, gain from which is computed in terms with section 50? - Only because the assets are depreciable assets, the gain derived from sale of such assets are treated as STCG. The short issue arising for consideration is, what tax rate is applicable to such a gain - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, ld. PCIT has exercised his powers u/s. 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order on the specific issue as to whether the tax rate applicable to LTCG in terms with section 112 of the Act can be applied to a depreciable asset, gain from which is computed in terms with section 50 of the Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the assets on which the assessee derived capital gain during the year are otherwise qualified as LTCG based on the period of holding. Only because the assets are depreciable assets, the gain derived from sale of such assets are treated as STCG. The short issue arising for consideration is, what tax rate is applicable to such a gain. Identical dispute arose in case of SKF India Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 477 - ITAT MUMBAI] hold that capital gains arising out of the depreciable asset u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction has to be confined only to section 50 and it cannot convert ‘short term capital asset’ into a ‘long term capital asset’ and vice versa for the other purpose of the Act, either for set off against a long term capital loss or exemption provision were benefits is given from a long term capital gain on transfer of a long term capital asset or the rate of tax provided u/s 112 of the Act which clearly provides that income arising from transfer of a long term capital asset chargeable under the head capital gains, the amount of income tax calculated on such a long term capital gain shall be the rate of 20%. Thus, even section 50 treats that excess is to be taxed as capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset but the rate of tax has to be applicable in terms of section 112 of the Act, because the treatment of a short term capital asset is only a purpose of section 50 and not otherwise can convert a ‘long term capital asset’ into a ‘short term capital asset’ for the purpose of rate of tax or any other provision of the Act. Accordingly, this question is answered in favour of the assessee holding that rate of tax applicable would be in terms of section 112 of the rate of 20% and applicable surcharge. Since, the decision of A.O. in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the applicable tax rate on the capital gain is in conformity with the judicial precedents referred to above, we do not find any error in decision making process of A.O. Thus, we are of the view that the exercise of power u/s. 263 of the Act in the present case is invalid. Accordingly, we quash the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act while restoring the assessment order. Assessee appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether capital gains computed under section 50 of the Income Tax Act (dealing with depreciable assets) - which deems certain gains to be 'arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets' for purposes of computation under sections 48 and 49 - are taxable at rates applicable to short-term capital gains, or whether the rate in section 112 (applicable to income arising from transfer of a long-term capital asset) applies where the underlying asset qualifies as a long-term capital asset by period of holding. 2. Whether the deeming fiction in section 50, including its non-obstante clause, operates to alter the character of the asset (i.e., convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset) for purposes beyond computation under sections 48 and 49 - specifically for (a) applicability of section 112 (tax rate) and (b) other provisions such as set-off and exemptions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Tax rate applicable where gains on depreciable assets are computed under section 50 Legal framework: Section 50 is a special computational provision for depreciable assets that begins with a non-obstante clause and modifies the operation of sections 48 and 49: where consideration from transfer of assets in a block exceeds specified amounts, the excess is 'deemed to be the capital gains arising from the transfer of short-term capital assets.' Section 112 prescribes the tax computation and rate (20% for domestic companies) where the total income includes income arising from transfer of a long-term capital asset. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal and several High Court decisions (notably the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the Ace Builders line and subsequent approvals by higher courts) have held that the deeming fiction in section 50 is confined to computational mechanics under sections 48 and 49 and does not alter the character of the asset for other provisions. The principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the context of section 54E, and tribunals/courts have applied the ratio to issues of set-off and tax rate. Interpretation and reasoning: Section 50's non-obstante clause limits the exclusion to the definition of short-term capital asset for the purpose of computing capital gains under sections 48 and 49. The deeming provision converts the character of the gain for computation only - it 'deems' the gain to be short-term for that limited purpose but does not convert the underlying asset into a short-term capital asset. Section 112, by its terms, applies where income arises from transfer of a long-term capital asset; where the asset qualifies as long-term by period of holding, both prerequisites for section 112 are satisfied. Accordingly, the rate-determination step (separate from computation) must give effect to the statutory meaning of 'long-term capital asset' used in section 112. The non-obstante clause in section 50 does not, by necessary implication, displace rate provisions applicable elsewhere in the Act. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the deeming fiction in section 50 is confined to computation under sections 48 and 49 and does not change the identity of the asset for purposes of section 112; therefore section 112's rate applies where the asset is a long-term capital asset by holding period. Observations explaining the limited purpose of the non-obstante clause and general principles of statutory interpretation (e.g., on legal fictions) are applied as ratio, supported by binding appellate authority in related contexts (section 54E) and subsequent approvals. Conclusion: Where a depreciable asset forming part of a block was held for the period qualifying it as a long-term capital asset, gains computed in accordance with section 50 remain subject to the tax rate regime of section 112 (20% for domestic companies), notwithstanding that section 50 deems the computed gain to be 'short-term' for purposes of sections 48 and 49. Issue 2 - Scope and effect of the non-obstante clause and the territoriality of the deeming fiction in section 50 (impact on other provisions such as set-off and exemptions) Legal framework: Section 50 contains a non-obstante clause overriding the definition in section 2(42A) only to the extent necessary for section 50's computational adjustments. Other provisions (e.g., section 54E exemption, section 74 set-off, section 112 tax rates) refer to the character of the asset or the character of the gain in their own terms and must be read in light of their definitions. Precedent treatment: Jurisdictional High Court decisions (Ace Builders and follow-ons) and Supreme Court confirmation (in the context of section 54E) establish that the fiction in section 50 is confined to computation and does not strip or alter the asset's character for other statutory provisions. Several tribunal and High Court rulings extended this principle to set-off (section 74) and rate questions (section 112). Interpretation and reasoning: A statutory fiction must ordinarily be confined to the purpose for which it is created; the non-obstante clause in section 50 effectuates limited displacement only for the computation regime. Non-obstante language does not ipso facto repeal or overwrite unrelated provisions; it operates to remove obstacles to the enacting part's operation. Accordingly, benefits or restrictions predicated on the asset being 'long-term' (or gains being long-term) under other sections should not be defeated by section 50's local computational deeming. Authorities illustrate that denying exemptions or set-offs on the basis of section 50's deeming would contravene this territorial approach to legal fictions. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the non-obstante clause and deeming in section 50 do not extend beyond the computational purpose to convert the asset's character for other provisions (including exemptions, set-off and tax-rate provisions). Observations about the proper scope of non-obstante clauses and examples from other factual settings (e.g., reclassification/relinquishment of depreciation) are supportive reasoning rather than separate ratio. Conclusion: Section 50's deeming fiction is territorially limited to modifying computation under sections 48 and 49; it does not convert a long-term capital asset into a short-term capital asset for purposes of section 112 (tax rates), section 74 (set-off), section 54E (exemptions) or other provisions that operate by reference to the asset's long-term character. Application to the facts and outcome On the facts, the underlying assets were held for periods qualifying them as long-term capital assets. The Assessing Officer computed gains under section 50 and applied the long-term rate under section 112. The revisional action under section 263 (on the ground that a short-term rate should apply because section 50 deemed the gains short-term) was found to be erroneous: binding precedent and the statutory scheme require that the section 112 rate apply. The exercise of revisional power was therefore quashed and the assessment restored.