Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. The facts, as brought out by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order vide Para-11 and 11.1 / Page-9, are extracted below:-

"11. Capital Gains In return of income assessee has offered capital gains of Rs. 19,57,77,000/- as long term capital gains computed as per section 50 and long term capital gains of Rs.63,87,664/-. The assessee has relied on the decision of Ace Builders (P) Limited v/s ACIT, (2001) 76 ITD 389 and considered capital gains in respect of depreciable assets computed under section 50 as Long term capital gains instead of Short terms capital gains. In support of their contention, assessee has given following note in return of income.
6 SKF India Ltd.
A.Ys 2001-02, 2002-03 2003-04 & 2004-05 "In the case of Ace Builders (P) Lid. V/s ACIT (20O1) 76 lTD 389, the ITAT Mumbai Bench has observed that the assumption of treating/deeming any capital gain arising on transfer of a depreciable asset as short-term capital gain, uncle,- section 50, is for the purpose of section 48 mid 49 only and therefore it cannot be extended to other provisions of the income-tax Act, as if it is so extended, it would amount to extending the deeming provisions beyond its legitimate field. It has, further, been observed that the specialty attached to Section 50 is to be restricted to only for the method of computing the capital gain and not for determining the nature gain. in view of the above decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench, and facts in our case, the capital gain computed vide Annexure--I as per provisions of section 50, have been treated as long term capital gains and accordingly taxed at 20% as per section 1 12(I)('b,).

It may be noted that the case of Ace Builders (P) Ltd. v/s ACIT, (2001) 76 ITD 389, the ITAT Mumbai Bench has observed that the assumption of treating / deeming any capital gain arising on transfer of a depreciable asset as short term capital gain, under section 48 and 49 only and therefore it cannot be extended to other provisions of the Act, as if it is so extended, it would amount to extending the deeming provisions beyond its legitimate field. It has further been observed that the specialty attached to section 50 is to be restricted to only for the method of computing the capital gain and not for determining the nature gain.

CIT v/s Delite Tin Industries, ITA no.1118 of 2008 (Bom.); CIT v/s Delite Tin Industries, CC 11431 of 2009 (SLP-SC).

17. Specific reliance is placed at Para-25 of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as in the case of Manali Investments (supra).

18. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly relied at Para-26 of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Ace Builders (supra) and submitted that the issue is no more resintegra. She distinguished the other case laws by submitting that they dealt with exemption provisions but not the rate of taxation. She argued that if tax is levied under section 112, then the wording under section 50 deeming the tax as short term capital gain would have no meaning.