9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether the excess amount from the amalgamation of a subsidiary company with the assessee is chargeable to tax as capital gains under section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Analysis: The High Court of Bombay was presented with a question regarding the taxability of an excess amount resulting from the amalgamation of a subsidiary company with the assessee. The subsidiary company, Latham Abercrombie, was wholly owned by the assessee, and upon amalgamation, an excess of Rs. 2,55,378 was identified over the cost of the assessee's shareholding. The Income Tax Officer treated this amount as capital gains arising from the extinguishment of the assessee's rights in the shares of the subsidiary company. The assessee contested this treatment through the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal, relying on the definition of "transfer" under section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. However, this argument was not pursued before the High Court, as it had been previously rejected by the Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court. Instead, the argument was shifted towards the impact of amalgamation on capital gains. The Court referred to the scope of amalgamation under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, as analyzed by the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court's judgment highlighted that in cases of amalgamation of 100% subsidiary companies with the parent company, there is no extinguishment of rights but a blending of assets, making any excess amount not taxable as capital gains or loss. The Court agreed with this analysis, emphasizing that in such scenarios, the parent company becomes the sole owner of the capital of the transferor companies without any additional gain or loss. The Court clarified that this interpretation is specific to amalgamations involving 100% subsidiaries and may not apply to other types of amalgamations. Therefore, in the case at hand, the excess amount from the amalgamation was not chargeable to tax as capital gains. In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that no capital gains arose from the amalgamation of the 100% subsidiary company with the assessee. As the assessee succeeded on a point not argued before the lower authorities, each party was directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
|
