9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 79 regarding set off of losses in case of change in shareholding. 2. Analysis of motive of new shareholders in acquiring shares. 3. Application of legal precedent set by Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Shree Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd. 4. Burden of proof on the assessee regarding motive for acquiring shares. 5. Consideration of unabsorbed development rebate and depreciation set off. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad-A involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the ld. AAC for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78, with the assessee filing cross-objections. The central issue in all appeals and cross-objections revolves around the application of Section 79 concerning the set off of losses in the case of a change in shareholding of a private limited company. The Revenue contended that Section 79 was applicable due to the change in shareholding, leading to the disallowance of set off of losses carried forward. However, the ld. AAC ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that Section 79 was not attracted in this case, allowing the set off of losses. The debate primarily focused on the motive behind the change in shareholding and whether it was done to avoid or reduce tax liability. The ld. Deptl. Rep highlighted the need to establish the motive behind the share transfer, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Shree Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd. The Court emphasized that both conditions under Section 79(a) and 79(b) must be fulfilled for the section to apply, with the burden of proof on the assessee to show the absence of a tax avoidance motive. The Court also clarified that Section 79 does not prevent the set off of unabsorbed depreciation or development rebate, only business losses. In response, the assessee's counsel argued that the new shareholders did not acquire the shares to reduce tax liability, especially since the company had previous losses and no current tax liability due to past losses and deductions. The counsel also pointed out that the new profitable business line started after a significant period following the share transfer, indicating a genuine commercial venture rather than a tax avoidance scheme. The Tribunal ultimately agreed with the ld. AAC's decision, ruling that Section 79 was not attracted in this case due to the lack of evidence supporting a tax avoidance motive behind the share transfer. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Additionally, the Tribunal held that since Section 79 was not applicable, the issue of setting off unabsorbed development rebate and depreciation did not arise, dismissing the cross-objections as well. In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the application of Section 79 in cases of changes in shareholding, emphasizing the importance of establishing the motive behind such changes to determine the applicability of the section. The decision also underscores the significance of legal precedents in interpreting tax laws and burden of proof requirements on the parties involved.
|
