Indian Income Tax Appellate Tribunal classifies rights as capital assets

by | Aug 27, 2020

Following a Karnataka High Court decision, in a recent case, the Bangalore Bench of the Indian Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has held that the relinquishment of rights under an agreement are capital assets, and thus, the income arising from such relinquishment is taxable as capital gains.

The expression “capital asset” has been defined under Indian tax law to mean “property of any kind”, subject to certain exclusions. Indian courts have examined this issue and held that contractual rights such as leasehold rights, subscription rights to shares of a company, rights to obtain a sale deed, and rights to title over immovable property are capital assets.

However, in the Vodafone case, India’s Supreme Court (Justice S. Radhakrishnan in his separate judgment) explicitly stated that contractual rights in an agreement do not sound in “property”, and hence, cannot, in the absence of a statutory stipulation, be considered as capital assets. We are not sure why the Vodafone judgment was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. The issue will remain open pending a higher court ruling.

More News

The Legal 500 2024 Rankings

We are pleased to share that our firm has been recognised for its work across practice areas by The Legal 500 (Legalease) in their 2024 rankings. Firm Rankings Antitrust and Competition Corporate and M&A Data Protection Dispute Resolution: Litigation Intellectual...

read more

“Workman” interpreted under Indian employment law

In the recent case of Rohit Dembiwal v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., the Bombay High Court held that an IT analyst did not qualify as a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as his day-to-day responsibilities were supervisory in nature, and his...

read more

EXL Service.com deemed not to have a PE in India

Last week, in the EXL Service.Com, Inc. case, the Delhi Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) followed the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Formula One and E-Funds cases and, inter alia, held that a US taxpayer does not have a fixed place permanent establishment...

read more