9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 47(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Computation of capital gains under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 47(v): The first dispute pertains to whether the provisions of Section 47(v) are applicable in this case. Section 47(v) provides that any transfer of a capital asset by a subsidiary company to the holding company is not considered a transfer if: (a) The whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company, and (b) The holding company is an Indian company. The Tribunal noted that prior to the transfer of assets, SIPL was the holding company, and K.B. Bank Ltd. was its subsidiary. However, due to an arbitration award resolving a dispute between two parties, SIPL was required to transfer all shares of K.B. Bank Ltd. to an individual, thereby ceasing to be the holding company. Consequently, the transfer of assets by K.B. Bank to SIPL, as directed by the arbitration award, was not between a subsidiary and a holding company. The Tribunal concurred with the revenue authorities that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 47(v). The appeal of the assessee on this ground was dismissed. 2. Computation of Capital Gains: The second issue concerns the computation of capital gains under Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 45 charges any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income tax under the head 'Capital gains'. The Tribunal noted that there was an exchange of assets between SIPL and K.B. Bank Ltd., which constitutes a transfer under Section 45. However, the Assessing Officer had determined the market value of the assets transferred by SIPL but not those transferred by K.B. Bank Ltd. Without determining the market value of both sets of assets, it is impossible to ascertain if any profits or gains arose from the exchange. The Tribunal highlighted that under Section 48, the computation of capital gains requires the 'full value of consideration' received or accruing as a result of the transfer. The Tribunal observed that the Legislature has allowed for the substitution of fair market value for full value of consideration in specific circumstances under Section 45, but not for exchanges of assets. Therefore, in the absence of a statutory provision enabling the computation of capital gains based on market value in the case of asset exchanges, Section 45 cannot be invoked. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, which held that for Section 45 to apply, the consideration received must be available to compute profits. Since such consideration was not available, no profits or gains could be assessed to tax under Section 45. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee is not liable to tax under Section 45 for the transfer of assets to SIPL by way of exchange. Conclusion: The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
|
