COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. ECE INDUSTRIES LTD.

Q: Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50, Section 50(2), Section 45, Section 48, Section 2(14), Section 41(2), Section 50B

ITA - 1069 / 2007HC Delhi24 December 201023 pages

For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the transaction of sale of the Sonepat Unit was a slump sale of a going concern as a whole. The Tribunal's view that the transaction was a slump sale and that Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act should be applied, rather than Sections 50 or 50B, was upheld. The Court reasoned that the sale consideration was not attributable to individual assets, making item-wise allocation impossible, which is a key factor in distinguishing a slump sale from a sale of individual assets. The Court distinguished the case of *CIT, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing Co.* by noting that in that case, an itemized valuation was carried out, which was not the situation here. The Court also referred to *CIT v. Electric Control Gear Manufacturing Co.*, which clarified that Section 41(2) (related to depreciable assets) has no application if the slump price cannot be allocated item-wise. The Court found that the sale of the entire undertaking as a going concern, with intangible assets like goodwill and manpower included, meant that computation of capital gains under Section 45 was not possible in the manner contemplated by the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal's direction to the AO to recompute the capital gain under Sections 45 and 48 was affirmed. The appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, ECE Industries Limited, is in appeal against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01. For AY 1999-2000, the assessee sold its Lamp Division as a going concern for ₹42.50 crores. The assessee computed a long-term capital loss, attributing the cost of the division at ₹59.33 crores. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 50 of the Income Tax Act, treating the gain as short-term capital gain on depreciable assets, and computed a short-term capital gain of ₹36,89,23,393. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) held the transaction to be a slump sale of a going concern, attracting Sections 45 and 48, and directed the AO to recompute the capital gain.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the transaction of sale of the Lamp Division by the assessee is a slump sale of a going concern, attracting Sections 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act, or if it is a sale of depreciable assets attracting Section 50 of the Act. (Mixed law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The sale of the Sonepat Unit was a slump sale of a going concern, not attributable to specific assets. - No part of the sale price was attributable to any particular asset, thus Section 50(2) was not attracted. - The unit was an old concern for over 36 months, thus transfer would result in long-term capital gain. - Relied on *CIT, Gujarat v. M/s. Artex Manufacturing Co.* [227 ITR 260 (SC)], *Sarabhai Chemicals Private Ltd.*, and *Telerad Private Ltd. v. P.N. Mittal*. Revenue's contentions: - The AO treated the gain as short-term capital gain under Section 50(2) as the sale involved depreciable assets. - The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, holding that the sale of the Lamp Division was a "Unit Sale" and not a slump sale, and that Section 50 applied, citing *Commonwealth Trust Ltd. v. CIT* [228 ITR 01]. - The CIT(A) rejected the contention that a break-up of sale consideration was not possible, citing *CIT, Gujarat II v. B.M. Kharwar* [72 ITR 603] and *CIT, Bombay City v. Bipinchandra Maganlal & Co. Ltd.* [41 ITR 290].

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 50,Section 50(2),Section 45,Section 48,Section 2(14),Section 41(2),Section 50B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2010:DHC:11694-DB

More judgments on Section 50

Karnavati Rolling Mills Private Limited… vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad
ITA 1714/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Edwise International Prop Edwise… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cirlce…
ITA 4878/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Mohammed Afzal & Bros, Ahmedabad vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…
ITA 1159/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Aquarius Transnational, Mumbai vs ITO-12(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan
ITA 5553/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2022-23
Sudesh Synthetic Mills Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Surat
ITA 739/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Sept 2026AY 2016-17

All 392 judgments and leading authorities on Section 50 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →