Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 199 - HC - Income TaxCapital asset u/s 2(14) - Scope of the term Asset / property - "interest of every kind" - whether loan given to its subsidiary in India, by the foreign company constitute capital asset - transfer in terms of Section 2(47) - HELD THAT:- No application while dealing with the Act. It is also his submission that the reliance upon decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v/s. Minor Bababhai [1980 (8) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] is inappropriate, as in that case, the Revenue has accepted that the amount due from the un-secured creditor were in the nature of capital assets. Thus, there was no dispute on the issue of 'capital asset' as in this case. Therefore, this appeal deserves admission. Section 2(14) of the Act has defined the word ‘capital asset’ very widely to mean property of any kind. However, it specifically excludes certain properties from the definition of 'capital asset'. The Revenue has not been able to point out any of the exclusion clauses being applicable to an advancement of a loan. It is also relevant to note that it is not the case of the Revenue before us that this amount of ₹ 90 lakhs Euros was a loan/ advance income of its trading activity. The impugned order of the Tribunal has considered the meaning of the word ‘property’ as given in the context of the definition of asset in the Wealth Tax Act to hold ‘property’ to include the every interest which a person can enjoy. This was extended by the Tribunal to understand the meaning of the word ‘property’ as found in the context of capital asset under Section 2(14). The Revenue has not been able to point out any reasons to understand meaning of the word ‘property’ as given in the Section 2(14) of the Act differently from the meaning given to it under Section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Revenue has not been able to point out why the above decision of this Court rendered in the context of capital assets as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act, is inapplicable to the present facts. Nor, why the loan given to M/s. SNISL would not, in the present facts, be covered by the meaning of ‘capital asset’ as given under Section 2(14) of the Act. As the issue raised herein stands concluded by the decision of this Court in M/s. Bafna Charitable Trust [1997 (9) TMI 93 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and also by the self evident position as found in Section 2(14) of the Act, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
|