9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether reduction of share capital in release of assets attracts capital gains in the hands of the shareholders? Analysis: The case involved a Tax Reference Case where the CIT, Trivandrum, was the applicant, and the respondent was the assessee, an individual who surrendered shares in a company and received land in return. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the transaction as constituting dividend and transfer, thus making it liable to tax. The CIT(A) upheld the transfer of shares as per section 2(47) of the Act, leading to the surplus being taxed as capital gain. The Tribunal, following a decision of the Madras High Court, ruled in favor of the assessee, which was challenged by the Department. The Department argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai vs. CIT established that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of a right amounts to a transfer of a capital asset, leading to taxation under section 45 of the Act. The Tribunal's reliance on the Madras High Court's decision was countered by the Gujarat High Court's contrary view in V. Sarabhai's case. However, the Tribunal's adoption of the favorable view to the assessee was based on the principle established in CIT vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. The Supreme Court's final decision in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai's case mandated adherence to its ruling. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that relinquishment or extinguishment of a right in an asset constitutes a transfer of a capital asset, regardless of a sale. This interpretation aligns with section 2(47) of the Act, making any profit or gain arising from such transfer taxable under section 45. Consequently, the reference was decided in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the reduction of share capital in exchange for assets attracts capital gains tax for the shareholders.
|
