AMORA CHEMICALS (P) LTD. vs. C.I.T.

ITR/5/2002HC GujaratGJHC24020354200228 August 2012Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI24 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Amora Chemicals (P) Ltd., entered into an agreement on July 1, 1978, with a landlord to rent certain floors of a building. The assessee agreed to pay monthly rent and advance Rs. 6 lakhs at 6% annual interest. Due to incomplete construction, the assessee advanced an additional Rs. 2.50 lakhs. The landlord eventually returned the Rs. 8.50 lakhs after three years. The assessee relinquished its tenancy rights approximately seven years after the agreement, receiving Rs. 15 lakhs in the accounting year relevant to assessment year 1986-87. The assessee contended the receipt was capital and not taxable due to no cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer treated Rs. 6,00,010/- as the cost of acquisition, taxing the difference as capital gains. The CIT(Appeals) considered the interest differential on the Rs. 8.50 lakhs as the cost of acquisition.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in cases where the cost of acquisition of a capital asset is not ascertainable, there is no charge of capital gains tax. Tenancy rights are a capital asset, and their surrender attracts Section 45. However, for capital gains tax to be levied, the cost of acquisition must be ascertainable. The court found that the agreement was a composite one, involving rent, loan advancement, and interest. It was impossible to distinguish any part of the differential interest as attributable to the cost of acquisition of tenancy rights. The fluctuating nature of the advance period (three years) compared to the tenancy period (seven years) further indicated that the differential interest could not be considered a cost of acquisition. The court distinguished the case from situations where the cost is clearly identifiable. The amended Section 55(2) providing for a deeming fiction for tenancy rights was not retrospective. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in confirming the view of the Commissioner (Appeals). The questions were answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a cost of acquisition of tenancy rights and that valuation of the said rights being determinable, the computation provisions under the Act are applicable and section 45 thereof would be attracted to the facts of the case? (Question of law turning on Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the case of A. R. Krishnamurti and another was applicable to the facts of the case of the applicant and that the ratio of the decision in the case of B.C. Srinivasa Setty was not at all applicable to the facts of the present case? (Question of law turning on interpretation of Supreme Court judgments). 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in equating the purchase of land, as in the case before the Supreme Court, with that of acquisition of tenancy rights as per Agreement dated 01.07.1978, and not appreciating that the rights under a purchase agreement could not be equivalent to the rights available under a lease agreement and that the ownership in the latter case was not full and absolute as in the case of the former transaction? (Question of law turning on Section 45 and interpretation of agreements). 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal can be said to be correct in law and sustainable from the material on record it having failed to appreciate that the lease rent paid by the assessee was for the use of the premises in question and that advancing of loans at a chapter rate of interest did not amount to parting with the funds irrevocably, and as such neither the rent nor the loan could amount to consideration for the transfer of tenancy rights in question? (Question of law turning on Section 45 and nature of consideration). 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not following the binding decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajabeli Nazarali and Sons v. CIT which directly dealt with the controversy as to whether the amount of compensation received for parting with the capital asset i.e. tenancy rights could be termed as a revenue receipt liable to be taxed under any provisions of the Act? (Question of law turning on Section 45 and precedent). 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal after having referred to the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT regarding nature of tenancy rights and the varieties of elements which contributed to making the value of same, was it open to the Tribunal to state that the payment of lease rent and the advancing of loan would go to make the cost of tenancy rights for the purposes of computation of capital gains under section 45 of the Act? (Question of law turning on Section 45). 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal is one which can be said to have been arrived at as a reasonable person after taking into consideration all relevant material and without being colored by any irrelevant consideration or matters of prejudice and basing its finding on suspicious, conjectures or surmises, or acting on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicious, conjectures or surmises? (Question of fact/law turning on appreciation of evidence). Assessee's Contentions: The sum of Rs. 15 lakhs was a capital receipt. Capital gains tax could not be charged as there was no cost of acquisition of tenancy rights. Reliance was placed on the ratio of B.C. Srinivasa Setty and the Gujarat High Court decision in Rajabeli Nazarali and Sons v. CIT. Revenue's Contentions: The Tribunal was justified in holding that there was a cost of acquisition of tenancy rights. The ratio of A. R. Krishnamurti and another was applicable. The lease rent and advancing of loans constituted consideration for the transfer of tenancy rights. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court decision in Bawa Shiv Charan Singh v. CIT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 45,Section 10(3),Section 56,Section 48,Section 55(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/5/2002 1/24 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 5 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= AMORA CHEMICALS (P) LTD. - Applicant(s) Versus C.I.T. - Respondent(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR RK PATEL for Applicant MR KM PARIKH for Respondent ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Date : 28/08/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)

ITR/5/2002 2/24 JUDGMENT

1.

In this reference, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the Tribunal” for short) has referred the fol

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 45

All 1,329 judgments and leading authorities on Section 45 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →