I wrote off my bottles and crates at 100% under the old proviso to section 32(1)(ii). Years later I sold them as scrap - is the sale money taxable under section 41(1)?
No, for the years when section 41(2) was off the statute book. The Supreme Court held that the balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Depreciation is by its nature neither a loss nor an expenditure nor a trading liability, which is all section 41(1) reaches. Section 41(2), which taxed the balancing charge, was deleted from assessment year 1988-89 when the block of assets concept came in, so between then and its restoration the profit on sale of such assets was not taxable. Items costing under Rs.5,000 bought before 31 March 1995 also stayed outside the block, so section 50 did not catch them either.
Decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ. (judgment per S.H. Kapadia, J.)) on 2009-07-06, reported as AIRONLINE 2009 SC 674. It bears on section 41(1), section 41(2), section 32(1)(ii), section 50 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances and Capital Gains matters.
This is the authority that stops the Revenue borrowing one sub-section of section 41 to plug the gap left by the repeal of another. The Court's structural point is the durable one: section 41(1) deals with recoupment of a trading liability, section 41(2) dealt with the balancing charge, section 41(3) with scientific research assets and section 41(4) with recovered bad debts, and recoupment under one sub-section cannot be read into another. If the Department were right, Parliament need never have enacted section 41(2) at all. The decision also maps the timeline that decides these bottle and crate cases: full write-off under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii), deletion of section 41(2) from 1 April 1988, and the deletion of that proviso by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 from 1 April 1996, after which such items entered the block of assets and their sale attracted section 50.
Binding on every court and authority in India.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The batch covered assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99. In the lead matter the assessee manufactured soft drinks and bought bottles and crates each costing less than Rs.5,000. Under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) it was allowed the whole actual cost as a deduction in the year each item was first put to use, so the written down value fell to nil at once. When the bottles and crates wore out they were sold and the proceeds were shown as miscellaneous income in later years. Had those sales fallen before assessment year 1988-89 the receipts would have been taxed as a balancing charge under section 41(2); but section 41(2) was deleted with effect from assessment year 1988-89 when the block of assets scheme was introduced. The Department nevertheless sought to tax Rs.50,850 under section 41(1), saying depreciation allowed earlier was expenditure and the sale proceeds were its recoupment. A second group of appeals, led by M/s Goa Bottling Company Pvt Ltd for assessment year 1998-99, fell after 1 April 1996. That company received Rs.6,89,91,901 on the sale of scrap bottles and crates, offered short term capital gains under section 50 on those bought after 1 April 1995, and claimed that those bought before 31 March 1995, having been written off entirely under the proviso, were outside the block of assets.
The assessees' appeals succeeded, with no order as to costs. The concept of balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Profits on the sale of bottles and crates written off in full under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) were therefore not taxable under section 41(1) in the years when section 41(2) stood deleted. Bottles and crates purchased before 31 March 1995 did not form part of the block of assets, so profit on their sale was taxable neither under section 41(1) nor under section 50. Those purchased after 1 April 1995 did form part of the block of assets, the proviso having been deleted by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996, and were exigible to capital gains tax under section 50. The Court limited its ruling to depreciable assets costing less than Rs.5,000 which did not enter the block of assets in the years in question. In Nectar Beverages' own appeals alone the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer on a narrow point, because that assessee had shown the receipts as miscellaneous income rather than as profit on sale of assets, to see whether that had understated net profits before section 28 and taxable profits after it.
The Court read section 41 as a set of sub-sections dealing with different and distinct topics: sub-section (1) with recoupment of a loss, expenditure or trading liability, sub-section (2) with the balancing charge, sub-section (3) with the balancing charge on scientific research assets, and sub-section (4) with recovery of bad debts earlier allowed. Recoupment under one cannot be read into another. The decisive point was why section 41(2) had to exist alongside section 41(1) at all before 1988. Section 41(1) reaches a loss, an expenditure or a trading liability, and depreciation is by its nature none of those three. Depreciation recovered on the sale of a capital asset was brought into total income as a balancing charge only by section 41(2), a concept foreign to the scheme of section 41(1). If the Department's reading were right, Parliament need never have enacted section 41(2), because section 41(1) alone would have sufficed. Section 41(2) was deleted when the block of assets concept was introduced with effect from 1 April 1988, because the block mechanism itself absorbs additions and deletions. But the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) survived until 1 April 1996, so items costing under Rs.5,000 continued to be written off outside the block. It followed that for such items bought before the proviso went, there was neither a balancing charge to tax nor a block of assets to reduce, and no charge arose on their eventual sale. After the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 removed the proviso, those items entered the block as defined in section 2(11) and their sale fell to be dealt with under section 50.
In its very nature, depreciation is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability, referred to in Section 41(1).
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo, for the years when section 41(2) was off the statute book. The Supreme Court held that the balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Depreciation is by its nature neither a loss nor an expenditure nor a trading liability, which is all section 41(1) reaches. Section 41(2), which taxed the balancing charge, was deleted from assessment year 1988-89 when the block of assets concept came in, so between then and its restoration the profit on sale of such assets was not taxable. Items costing under Rs.5,000 bought before 31 March 1995 also stayed outside the block, so section 50 did not catch them either. This was decided by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ. (judgment per S.H. Kapadia, J.)) and bears on section 41(1), section 41(2), section 32(1)(ii), section 50 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as AIRONLINE 2009 SC 674. This is the authority that stops the Revenue borrowing one sub-section of section 41 to plug the gap left by the repeal of another. The Court's structural point is the durable one: section 41(1) deals with recoupment of a trading liability, section 41(2) dealt with the balancing charge, section 41(3) with scientific research assets and section 41(4) with recovered bad debts, and recoupment under one sub-section cannot be read into another. If the Department were right, Parliament need never have enacted section 41(2) at all. The decision also maps the timeline that decides these bottle and crate cases: full write-off under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii), deletion of section 41(2) from 1 April 1988, and the deletion of that proviso by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 from 1 April 1996, after which such items entered the block of assets and their sale attracted section 50. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Fix the date of purchase of each written-off item; the answer turns on whether it entered the block of assets, which for items under Rs.5,000 depends on whether it was bought before or after 1 April 1995.
The batch covered assessment years 1990-91 to 1998-99. In the lead matter the assessee manufactured soft drinks and bought bottles and crates each costing less than Rs.5,000. Under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) it was allowed the whole actual cost as a deduction in the year each item was first put to use, so the written down value fell to nil at once. When the bottles and crates wore out they were sold and the proceeds were shown as miscellaneous income in later years. Had those sales fallen before assessment year 1988-89 the receipts would have been taxed as a balancing charge under section 41(2); but section 41(2) was deleted with effect from assessment year 1988-89 when the block of assets scheme was introduced. The Department nevertheless sought to tax Rs.50,850 under section 41(1), saying depreciation allowed earlier was expenditure and the sale proceeds were its recoupment. A second group of appeals, led by M/s Goa Bottling Company Pvt Ltd for assessment year 1998-99, fell after 1 April 1996. That company received Rs.6,89,91,901 on the sale of scrap bottles and crates, offered short term capital gains under section 50 on those bought after 1 April 1995, and claimed that those bought before 31 March 1995, having been written off entirely under the proviso, were outside the block of assets. The matter was decided on 2009-07-06 by the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ. (judgment per S.H. Kapadia, J.)). On those facts the Supreme Court held as follows. The assessees' appeals succeeded, with no order as to costs. The concept of balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Profits on the sale of bottles and crates written off in full under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) were therefore not taxable under section 41(1) in the years when section 41(2) stood deleted. Bottles and crates purchased before 31 March 1995 did not form part of the block of assets, so profit on their sale was taxable neither under section 41(1) nor under section 50. Those purchased after 1 April 1995 did form part of the block of assets, the proviso having been deleted by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996, and were exigible to capital gains tax under section 50. The Court limited its ruling to depreciable assets costing less than Rs.5,000 which did not enter the block of assets in the years in question. In Nectar Beverages' own appeals alone the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer on a narrow point, because that assessee had shown the receipts as miscellaneous income rather than as profit on sale of assets, to see whether that had understated net profits before section 28 and taxable profits after it.
The Court read section 41 as a set of sub-sections dealing with different and distinct topics: sub-section (1) with recoupment of a loss, expenditure or trading liability, sub-section (2) with the balancing charge, sub-section (3) with the balancing charge on scientific research assets, and sub-section (4) with recovery of bad debts earlier allowed. Recoupment under one cannot be read into another. The decisive point was why section 41(2) had to exist alongside section 41(1) at all before 1988. Section 41(1) reaches a loss, an expenditure or a trading liability, and depreciation is by its nature none of those three. Depreciation recovered on the sale of a capital asset was brought into total income as a balancing charge only by section 41(2), a concept foreign to the scheme of section 41(1). If the Department's reading were right, Parliament need never have enacted section 41(2), because section 41(1) alone would have sufficed. Section 41(2) was deleted when the block of assets concept was introduced with effect from 1 April 1988, because the block mechanism itself absorbs additions and deletions. But the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) survived until 1 April 1996, so items costing under Rs.5,000 continued to be written off outside the block. It followed that for such items bought before the proviso went, there was neither a balancing charge to tax nor a block of assets to reduce, and no charge arose on their eventual sale. After the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 removed the proviso, those items entered the block as defined in section 2(11) and their sale fell to be dealt with under section 50. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In its very nature, depreciation is neither a loss, nor an expenditure, nor a trading liability, referred to in Section 41(1)."
It was decided by the Supreme Court on 2009-07-06 and is reported as AIRONLINE 2009 SC 674. Binding on every court and authority in India. A Supreme Court decision binds every assessing officer, every Commissioner (Appeals), every bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and every High Court in India. An officer who declines to follow it is acting contrary to law, and that refusal is itself a ground of appeal. On section 41(1), section 41(2), section 32(1)(ii), section 50, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The assessees' appeals succeeded, with no order as to costs. The concept of balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Profits on the sale of bottles and crates written off in full under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) were therefore not taxable under section 41(1) in the years when section 41(2) stood deleted. Bottles and crates purchased before 31 March 1995 did not form part of the block of assets, so profit on their sale was taxable neither under section 41(1) nor under section 50. Those purchased after 1 April 1995 did form part of the block of assets, the proviso having been deleted by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996, and were exigible to capital gains tax under section 50. The Court limited its ruling to depreciable assets costing less than Rs.5,000 which did not enter the block of assets in the years in question. In Nectar Beverages' own appeals alone the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer on a narrow point, because that assessee had shown the receipts as miscellaneous income rather than as profit on sale of assets, to see whether that had understated net profits before section 28 and taxable profits after it. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances and Capital Gains matters, on section 41(1), section 41(2), section 32(1)(ii), section 50 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Supreme Court of India - S.H. Kapadia and Aftab Alam, JJ. (judgment per S.H. Kapadia, J.). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Where the Assessing Officer invokes section 41(1) on the sale of a fully depreciated asset, meet it head on: depreciation is not a loss, an expenditure or a trading liability. Do not let a sub-section be substituted for another; ask which limb of section 41 is actually said to apply and test the receipt against that limb alone. Present the receipt in the accounts as profit on sale of assets rather than burying it in miscellaneous income - the Court sent Nectar Beverages back to the Assessing Officer on exactly that point while the other appellants, who had labelled it correctly, faced no verification.
Still good law. The full judgment was read, ending in the operative order allowing the appeals. It is a Supreme Court decision on statutory construction and expressly limits itself to depreciable assets costing less than Rs.5,000 that did not enter the block of assets in the years before it. Its practical field is therefore closed: the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) went with effect from 1 April 1996 and section 41(2) was later restored for the assets it covers. I have not checked for any later decision considering it. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment records that section 41(1) remained unchanged both before 1 April 1988 and after 1 April 1998, which reads as though section 41(2) was reintroduced from 1998, but the text does not say so expressly and I have not verified it. In the passage on the Goa Bottling appeals the judgment refers to the proviso to section 31(1)(ii); the provision meant is plainly the proviso to section 32(1)(ii). The batch line lists section 43(6), which the judgment does not discuss. Only the lead facts of two of the appeals in the batch are set out in the judgment. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The assessees' appeals succeeded, with no order as to costs. The concept of balancing charge in section 41(2) cannot be read into section 41(1). Profits on the sale of bottles and crates written off in full under the proviso to section 32(1)(ii) were therefore not taxable under section 41(1) in the years when section 41(2) stood deleted. Bottles and crates purchased before 31 March 1995 did not form part of the block of assets, so profit on their sale was taxable neither under section 41(1) nor under section 50. Those purchased after 1 April 1995 did form part of the block of assets, the proviso having been deleted by the Finance (No.2) Act 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996, and were exigible to capital gains tax under section 50. The Court limited its ruling to depreciable assets costing less than Rs.5,000 which did not enter the block of assets in the years in question. In Nectar Beverages' own appeals alone the matter was remitted to the Assessing Officer on a narrow point, because that assessee had shown the receipts as miscellaneous income rather than as profit on sale of assets, to see whether that had understated net profits before section 28 and taxable profits after it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The lender wrote off the principal of a loan I used to buy machinery. Is that taxable?
The firm revalued its land and credited the surplus to the partners' capital accounts. Is that taxable?
I sold a depreciable asset held for over three years. Can I still claim the capital gains exemption?
Old sundry creditors are still in my balance sheet. Can the AO tax them as ceased liabilities?