Section 50

Section 50 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 50, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• CIT v Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills Supreme CourtHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  The firm revalued its land and credited the surplus to the partners' capital accounts. Is that taxable?
  Under the old s.45(4), yes. The Supreme Court held that crediting a revaluation surplus to partners' capital accounts on a reconstitution is in effect a distribution of the assets to the partners and a transfer chargeable to capital gains, because the enhanced balances were immediately available for withdrawal — and two partners did withdraw.
• CIT v V.S. Dempo Company Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I sold a depreciable asset held for over three years. Can I still claim the capital gains exemption?
  Yes. Section 50 is only a special mode of computing gains on depreciable assets, and its deeming fiction is limited to the computation under ss.48 and 49. An asset held for more than thirty-six months stays a long-term capital asset, so exemption under s.54E, and on the same reasoning s.54EC, survives even though the gain is computed as short-term.
• Nectar Beverages Pvt Ltd v DCIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  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.
• ITO v Parikh Transport Co. High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I sold a building on which depreciation had been claimed in earlier years. The Assessing Officer applies s.50, calls the gain short-term and refuses the bond exemption. Can he?
  Not on this Gujarat decision, for two independent reasons. Section 50 applies only where the asset both is depreciable and forms part of a block of assets, so an asset withdrawn from business use before the block-of-assets scheme began never entered a block and s.50 does not reach it. And in any event the legal fiction in s.50 is confined to the computation of capital gains and cannot cut down s.54EC, which exempts the gain where the assessee invests in the specified asset.
• CIT v Ace Builders (P) Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I sold a building I had held for years and claimed depreciation on. The gain is computed as short-term under section 50. Can I still claim the capital gains exemption for investing the proceeds?
  Yes. The Bombay High Court held that the deeming fiction in section 50 is confined to the mode of computing capital gains under sections 48 and 49. It deems the gain to be short-term; it does not deem the asset to be a short-term capital asset. Section 54E draws no distinction between depreciable and non-depreciable assets, so an assessee who invests the net consideration from a long-term asset in the specified securities within the time allowed gets the exemption, whether the gain was computed under sections 48 and 49 or under section 50.
• Premier Automobiles Ltd v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer has broken our lump sum into building, plant and paint shop and charged short-term capital gains, relying on the values the buyer later put in its own books. Can he apportion a slump price like that?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the basic test for a slump sale is continuity of business — whether there was a transfer of a business as a whole — and that on the facts the lump sum of Rs.210 crores was not apportionable to different assets and the individual values were not ascertainable. The buyer's later accounting entries could not be used, and the matter went back for a fresh computation on the footing of a slump sale.
• Nirma Ltd v DCIT — depreciation on goodwill from amalgamation, and the date the Finance Act 2021 closed it ITATHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation on goodwill that arose when a company amalgamated into mine. Which years can I still claim it for?
  Only assessment years up to AY 2020-21. The Finance Act 2021 removed goodwill of a business or profession from the definition of block of assets in s.2(11) and from s.32, excluded it from Explanation 3(b) to s.32(1), and amended s.43(6)(c)(ii) to require the written down value of goodwill to be reduced from the opening WDV where goodwill already formed part of a block; those amendments apply prospectively from AY 2021-22. For earlier years the Tribunal here allowed the claim on Smifs Securities, and the amendment gives the Assessing Officer no ground to disturb it.
• Manali Investments v Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax ITATHelps taxpayer
  I sold depreciable assets I had held for over three years and the whole block ceased to exist, so the gain was computed under section 50. The Assessing Officer says the gain is short-term and refuses to set it against my brought-forward long-term capital loss. Is he right?
  No. The Mumbai Tribunal held that s.50 is a computation provision and a deeming provision, and that the fiction cannot be carried beyond the purpose for which it was enacted: once the capital gain on the depreciable asset has been computed under s.50, the operation of that section is spent and the gain must be dealt with under the other provisions of the Act. The asset having been held for more than thirty-six months, the gain retains the character of long-term capital gain for all other provisions and qualifies for set-off against the brought-forward long-term capital loss under s.74.
• Mrs Rohita Subramaniam v DCIT ITATHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My husband died some years ago. The Assessing Officer says my minor sons' income must be clubbed with mine. Which limb of the Explanation to s.64(1A) applies to a widow, and does it matter that the boys have their own money to live on?
  Clause (a) of the Explanation applies, not clause (b): on the death of a spouse the marriage does not cease to subsist, so the income goes to the parent whose total income is greater. Where the other parent is dead and therefore has nil income, the surviving parent's income is necessarily the greater, however small it is, and the minors' income is clubbed there.
• CBDT Circular 14/2021 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  A partner retired and took assets out of the firm. How do s.9B and s.45(4) work together?
  Separately, and both can apply to the same reconstitution. Section 9B is applied first, to the deemed transfer of the assets received by the partner at fair market value; s.45(4) is then applied to the money or asset received in excess of the partner's capital account balance, computed without any revaluation increase. There is no set-off between the two.
• Statutory position — Rule 8AA(5): whether the section 45(4) charge on the firm is short-term or long-term CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The firm has been charged under section 45(4) on a payout to a partner on reconstitution. Is that gain short-term or long-term, and how do I work out the split?
  You look through the charge to the assets the amount has been attributed to. Rule 8AA(5) deems the amount, or a part of it, to be from the transfer of a short-term capital asset where it is attributed to an asset that is short-term at the time of the section 45(4) taxation, to an asset forming part of a block of assets, or to a self-generated asset or self-generated goodwill; and to be from the transfer of a long-term capital asset where it is attributed to any other asset that is long-term at that time. One section 45(4) charge can therefore split into a short-term part and a long-term part.
• Statutory position — the capital-loss asymmetry: sections 70(2), 70(3) and 74(1) from AY 2003-04 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  I have a long-term capital loss and short-term capital gains this year, and also a brought-forward long-term loss. Which loss can go against which gain, and for how long can I carry it?
  A short-term capital loss can be set off against any capital gain, short-term or long-term; a long-term capital loss can only be set off against a long-term capital gain. That asymmetry holds both within the year, under s.70(2) and s.70(3), and on carry forward, under s.74(1)(a) and s.74(1)(b); the carry forward is limited to eight assessment years by s.74(2). The present form of both sections was put in place by the Finance Act 2002 with effect from 1 April 2003, that is Assessment Year 2003-04.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.