2010 (7) Supreme 792
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
M/s Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. — Appellant(s)
versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax IV — Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos.7780-7781 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 4053-4054 of 2010)
with
Civil Appeal No.7782 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.34944 of 2009,
Civil Appeal Nos.7783-7785 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.10452- 10454 of 2010,
Civil Appeal Nos.7786-7788 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.11514- 11516 of 2010,
Civil Appeal No.7789 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.11518 of 2010,
Civil Appeal Nos.7790-7791 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.11520- 11521 of 2010,
Civil Appeal No.7792 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.11523 of 2010 and
Civil Appeal Nos.7793-7794 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.11524- 11525 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7795-7798 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.4373- 4376 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7799-7802 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.4407- 4410 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7803-7804 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5033- 5034 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7805 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.5153 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7806-7809 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5266- 5269 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7810-7812 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5302- 5304 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7813-7814 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5541- 5542 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7815-7816 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5581- 5582 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7817-7818 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.5656- 5657 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7819-7822 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6093- 6096 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7823-7824 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6149- 6150 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7825-7827 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6151- 6153 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7828 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6661 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7829-7830 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6664- 6665 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7831 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6666 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7832 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6667 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7833-7835 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6668- 6670 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7836-7839 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6672- 6675 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7840-7842 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6676- 6678 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7843-7844 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6681- 6682 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7845 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.6683 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7846 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7861 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7847-7848 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8223- 8224 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7849 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9503 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7850 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9688 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7851 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9854 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7852 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.9855 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7853-7855 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.16258- 16260 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7856-7858 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6707- 6709 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7859-7861 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.6843- 6845 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7862-7864 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8672- 8674 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7865-7866 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7003- 7004 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7867-7870 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7206- 7209 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7871 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7210 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7872 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7211 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7873-7875 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7258- 7260 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7876-7878 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8686- 8688 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7879 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7309 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7880 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7350 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7881-7882 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7386- 7387 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7883-7884 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8679- 8680 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7885-7886 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8681- 8682 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7887-7889 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.7823- 7825 of 2010
Civil Appeal No.7890 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) No.7536 of 2010
Civil Appeal Nos.7891-7892 of 2010 @ S.L.P. (C) Nos.8676- 8677 of 2010
Decided on : 9-9-2010
(b) Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32(1)(ii) – Membership right is owned by the assessee and used for the business purpose in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) – Membership is a personal permission from the Exchange which is nothing but a “licence” – Membership card is an asset of a non-defaulting continuing member. (Paras 18, 19, 21 and 22)
(1999) 6 SCC 215; (2001) 248 ITR 209 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
This batch of appeals raises the question whether BSE Membership Card can be considered an intangible asset for the purpose of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
Right of membership is a “business or commercial right” which gives a non-defaulting continuing member a right to access the Exchange and to participate therein and in that sense it is a licence or akin to licence in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.
Result : Appeals filed by the nominated non-defaulting continuing member allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.H. Kapadia, CJI
1. Leave granted.
2. In this batch of cases the question which arises for determination is: whether BSE Membership Card can be considered an intangible asset for the purpose of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the 1961 Act”)?
Facts in M/s Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. [Lead matter]
3. In this case, we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. The assessee company filed its Return of income for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 disclosing a loss of Rs.10,77,276/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) on November 8, 2000. The case stood reopened under Section 147 and Notice u/s 148 stood issued to the assessee on 16.7.2002. The assessee filed its return of income under protest. The assessee filed its return of income pursuant to the Notice u/s 148 once again declaring loss of Rs. 10,77,276/-, the same as was in the original return of income. The main reason for reopening of assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-. The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999. However, the said Section deals with claim for depreciation of items acquired on or after 1.4.1998. The assessee claimed before the A.O. that the BSE membership card is a “licence” or “business or commercial right of similar nature” u/s 32(1)(ii) and is, therefore, an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) which submission was not accepted by the A.O. It was held that membership is only a personal permission which is non-transferable and which does not devolve automatically on legal heirs and, therefore, it is not a privately owned asset. That, there is no ownership of an asset and that what ultimately can be sold is only a Right to Nomination. Further, according to the A.O., in the case of BSE membership, there is no obsolescence, wear and tear or diminution in value by its use, hence, the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii). This decision of the A.O. stood affirmed by C.I.T. (A) in the appeal filed by the assessee.
4. Aggrieved by the said decision of CIT (A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal which took the view that since the assessee had acquired a right to trade on the floor of BSE through the membership card, it was not entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act. That, the said Card is a capital asset through which right to trade on the floor of BSE is acquired and since it is intangible asset the said assessee was entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii).
5. Against the said decision, the Department carried the matter in appeal to the High Court which came to the conclusion, following certain decisions of this Court, that the BSE membership card is only a personal privilege granted to a member to trade in shares on the floor of the Stock Exchange; that, such a privilege cannot be equated with the expression “licence” or “any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” u/s 32(1)(ii); that, there is a difference between acquiring a know-how, patent, copyright or trademark and acquiring a licence to use such know-how, patent, copyright, trademark or franchise; that the expression “business or commercial rights of similar nature” in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act would take its colour from the preceding words, namely, know-how, patent, copyright, trademark and franchise which belong to a class of intellectual property rights and applying the rule of ejusdem generis, the High Court held that the expression “licence” as well as the expression “business and commercial rights of similar nature” in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act are referable to IPRs such as know-how, patent, copyright, trademark and franchise and since the BSE membership card does not fall in any of the above catego
Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.