Provisions to tax capital gains in India’s income tax law were first included in 1947. The Act XII(22) of 1947, amended Income Tax Act, 1922 (‘IT Act, 1922’) – predecessor to India’s current income tax statute, IT Act, 1961 – and expanded the definition of income to include capital gains. The expansion of definition of income was subject of a judicial challenge where the Bombay High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court concluded that the term income can encompass capital gains, though Justice Chagla – then at the Bombay High Court – had a different opinion. The different reasonings offer us a small glimpse of the understanding of the term income seven decades ago, and wider interpretive challenges at the interface of constitutional law and tax law that continue until today.
Amendment of 1947
The Act XII (22) of 1947 introduced certain amendments to the IT Act, 1922 to bring capital gains within the net of income tax. A new definition of capital asset was inserted under Section 2(42A) where it was defined as property of any kind held by an assessee whether connected with his business, profession, or vocation. Section 6 was amended to include an additional head of capital gain, and definition of income was expanded include any capital gain chargeable under Section 12B. In turn, Section 12B stated that capital gains shall be payable by an assessee under the head capital gains in respect of any profits or gains arising from sale, transfer or exchange of a capital asset effectuated after 31.03.1946. The Bombay High Court correctly noted that the amendments aimed to levy tax on capital gains earned through sale, transfer or exchange and not on the entire value of the underlying capital asset. Levying tax on the realised gains continues to be the commonly accepted and widely adopted definition of capital gains tax.
Challenge on Grounds of Legislative Competence
The legislative competence to enact the amendment was the subject of a judicial challenge before the Bombay High Court and thereafter the Supreme Court. The Bombay High Court noted that the central question before it was whether the Union was competent to enact the amendment in view of the provisions of Government of India Act, 1935. The High Court noted the relevant legislative entries in List I of the Seventh Schedule that required interpretation were:
Entry 54, List I stated: ‘Taxes on income other than agricultural income.’
Entry 55, List II stated: ‘Taxes on the capital value of the assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of individuals and companies; taxes on the capital of companies.’
The Bombay High Court, through Justice Chagla and Justice Tendulkar pronounced an interesting judgment wherein both the judges upheld the vires of the amendment but reasoned differently. Justice Chagla, in his opinion, emphasised on the distinction between income and capital and opined that he need not be guided by the reasonable or common interpretation of the term ‘income’, but instead it is important that he relies on legislative practice. He referred to the relevant cases British cases and concluded that ‘capital accretion could never have been looked upon as income by an English lawyer’ and it was not correct to give a connotation to the word income that was foreign to legislative practice. Justice Chagla concluded that taxes on income could not include taxes on capital accretion.
Justice Tendulkar though opined that relying on legislative practice was only appropriate when the term in question was ambiguous. Also, that income has been held to not include capital accretion only in the context of taxation laws and the cases do not restrict the scope of the term income outside taxation laws. This distinction may seem specious, because in the impugned case, the scope of the term income was also in reference to a tax statute, i.e., IT Act, 1922, even if indirectly. At the same time, it is true that the immediate query was whether income can include capital gains under the legislative entry – Entry 54, List I. Justice Tendulkar accordingly observed that merely because the term income is interpreted narrowly for purposes of income tax law, does not mean it acquires a similar meaning outside taxation law. The term income as used in Entry 54, List I could be interpreted differently as compared to the term income as used in a tax statute. Justice Tendulkar further reasoned that words should be given their natural meaning and concluded that the term income under Entry 54, List I was wide enough to include capital gains AS contemplated under Section 12B, IT Act, 1922.
While both judges of the Bombay High Court adopted different reasoning in their opinions, both concluded that the provisions inserted in IT Act, 1922 were intra vires the Government of India Act, 1935. The difference was that Justice Chagla’s view was that the amendment was covered by Entry 55, List I while Justice Tendulkar was of the view that Entry 54, List I was wide enough to include the amendment relating to capital gains within its ambit. Justice Tendulkar’s reasoning though left one question unanswered: if capital gains could be included in Entry 54, List I, was Entry 55, List I redundant? The latter specifically included taxation on capital value of assets in its ambit. One could argue though that Entry 55, List I only included taxation on capital value of assets and did not contemplate taxation on capital gains. This interplay of both the legislative entries was not addressed adequately by Justice Tendulkar.
Supreme Court Interprets Income Liberally
In appeal against the Bombay High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court expressed its agreement with the view adopted by Justice Tendulkar. The Supreme Court made two crucial observations: first, in citing legislative practice, the Bombay High Court observed that legislative practice deducted by citing the judicial decisions only revealed interpretation of the term income in the context of tax statutes and it does not necessarily narrow the natural and grammatical meaning of the term income; second, the Supreme Court observed that the words used in a legislative entry should be construed liberally and in their widest amplitude. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the impugned amendment was intra vires Entry 54, List I and it was unnecessary to state if the amendment was within the scope of Entry 55. Supreme Court’s judgment which aligned with Justice Tendulkar also suffered from similar limitation of not adequately addressing the interplay of both the entries: Entry 54, List I and Entry 55, List I.
Capital Gains = Income
One takeaway from the High Court and Supreme Court decisions is that income wasn’t intuitively understood to comprise capital gains, until as recent as 1947. Taxation on capital gains is such an integral part of our contemporary income tax laws that the notion of capital gains not being included in the scope of income may seem otherworldly to contemporary tax lawyers. Yet the process of expansion of income to include within its scope capital gains wasn’t a straightforward process as evident in the case discussed above. In fact, the only debates since 1947 have been about rationalizing capital gains provisions and not their place in income tax laws per se. While jurisprudence has grown on the distinction between revenue and capital receipts, and arguments that the latter are not taxable unless there is an express charging provision to that effect; the wider place of capital gains under income tax law is never under challenge per se. At least not directly.
Another aspect that is worth pointing in some detail is the interpretive tools that judges used to determine the meaning of the term income and capital gains. Legislative practice, reasonable interpretation of the term, as well as the notion of liberal interpretation of legislative entries all interlocked to determine the fate of India’s first attempt to include capital gains in the universe of income tax laws. The judges also observed that to hold that the term income has been crystallised would act against any attempt to further enlarge the definition of income, and would imply that no further amendments to the definition of income are possible. Though I doubt that the intent of arguing that income excludes capital gains was to imply that the definition of income is permanent. The argument that capital gains cannot form part of income was based on the understanding of income as a regular or recurring source of monetary benefit while capital gains was understood as a rare or at least a non-regular means of benefitting monetarily and thereby outside the ambit of income.