9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether there was a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47). 2. Whether the assessee would still not be liable to tax on the capital gains by virtue of the provisions of section 47(vii). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer of Capital Asset within the Meaning of Section 2(47): The assessee, a trust assessed as an AOP, owned shares in Shahibaug Entrepreneurs (P.) Ltd. (SEPL) and received shares and bonds in Alkapuri Investments (P.) Ltd. (Alkapuri) upon amalgamation. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held that the transaction constituted a transfer under section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and thus capital gains were chargeable. The assessee argued that there was no transfer of capital asset within the meaning of section 2(47), relying on precedents such as CIT v. Rasiklal Maneklal HUF and CIT v. Master Raghuveer Trust. However, the ITO rejected this claim, stating that the introduction of section 47(vii) by the Finance Act, 1967, altered the legal landscape, making the transaction a transfer for capital gains purposes unless specific conditions were met. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the ITO's view, noting that the transaction involved a transfer of shares and bonds, which did not fall under the non-transfer provisions of section 47(vii). The Tribunal, however, noted that the Karnataka High Court in Master Raghuveer Trust had held that no transfer of capital asset was involved in the amalgamation of companies. 2. Exemption from Capital Gains Tax under Section 47(vii): The assessee contended that even if the transaction was considered a transfer, it should be exempt from capital gains tax under section 47(vii). This section exempts transfers of shares in a scheme of amalgamation if the transfer is made in consideration of the allotment of shares in the amalgamated company and if the amalgamated company is an Indian company. The ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) argued that section 47(vii) did not apply because the assessee received both shares and bonds, making it a composite transaction not covered by the exemption. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that section 47(vii) does not specify that only shares must be received for the exemption to apply. The Tribunal emphasized that the section should be interpreted as it is, without adding the word "only." The Tribunal also referred to the decision in H.K. Bhavnani, where the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had upheld the exemption under section 47(vii) even when shares and debentures were received. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under section 47(vii) and that the income-tax authorities were not justified in charging capital gains. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the assessee was not liable for capital gains tax on the transaction. It set aside the orders of the income-tax authorities, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that section 47(vii) should be interpreted liberally to provide the intended exemption and that the amalgamation was approved by the High Court, indicating no intent to evade tax.
|
