1985 (9) TMI 7 - SC - Income Tax

Partner introduced capital asset to firm by crediting market price of asset in the firm s books - whether the capital contribution by a partner to the assets of a partnership firm at an appreciated value can be said to give rise to a capital gain in his hands liable to income-tax - held that there was a transfer of the shares - held that when the assessee transferred his shares, he received no consideration as per s. 48 nor did any profit or gain accrue to him as per section 45

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the capital contribution by a partner to the assets of a partnership firm at an appreciated value gives rise to a capital gain liable to income-tax.
2. Whether the transaction of contributing shares to a partnership firm constitutes a "transfer" under Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the assessee received any consideration as understood in the context of capital gains under the Income-tax Act.
4. Whether any profit or gain arises to a partner when he brings his personal asset into a partnership firm as his contribution to its capital.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Capital Contribution and Capital Gain:

The primary issue in these appeals was whether the capital contribution by a partner to the assets of a partnership firm at an appreciated value results in a capital gain liable to income-tax. The court examined the facts where the assessee, a partner in a firm, contributed shares as his capital contribution. The shares were revalued at market value, and the difference was credited to his capital account. The Income-tax Officer initially did not include the difference in the assessable income, but the Commissioner of Income-tax later directed the inclusion of the difference as capital gains. The Tribunal, however, held that no capital gains resulted from the transfer, a view that was contested by the Revenue.

2. Definition of "Transfer":

The court analyzed whether the transaction constituted a "transfer" within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was argued that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity, and the assets are collectively owned by the partners. The court referred to previous judgments, including Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT, which stated that a partnership firm has no separate rights in the partnership assets. The court also considered CIT v. Hind Construction Ltd., where it was held that the transfer of machinery to a partnership firm did not constitute a sale. The court concluded that while the transaction might not amount to a sale, it could still be considered a transfer under the inclusive definition provided in Section 2(47).

3. Consideration Received:

The court examined whether the assessee received any consideration as required under Section 48 of the Income-tax Act. It was argued that the consideration for the transfer of personal assets to the partnership firm is the right to share in the profits and, upon dissolution or retirement, to receive the value of the net partnership assets. The court noted that the credit entry in the partner's capital account does not represent the true value of the consideration, as it is a notional value subject to future liabilities and losses. The court held that the consideration received by the assessee could not be ascertained in monetary terms at the time of the transfer, and therefore, the case fell outside the scope of capital gains taxation.

4. Profit or Gain Arising:

The court addressed whether any profit or gain arises to a partner when he brings his personal asset into a partnership firm. It was argued that real capital gains must be computed on ordinary commercial principles, and the capital gains must be embedded in the capital asset. The court referred to previous judgments, including Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT, which upheld the principle that profits or gains must be understood in the sense of real profits or gains. The court concluded that no income or gain arises to the assessee in the true commercial sense when he contributes his personal asset to the partnership firm.

Conclusion:

The court held that when the assessee brought the shares into the partnership firm as his capital contribution, there was a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act. However, the consideration received by the assessee did not fall within the terms of Section 48, and no profit or gain accrued to him for the purpose of Section 45. The court emphasized that the partnership firm in question must be genuine and not a sham transaction. The appeals were partly allowed, with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

1. There was a transfer of the shares when the assessee made them over to the partnership firm as his capital contribution.
2. When the assessee transferred his shares to the partnership firm, he received no consideration within the meaning of Section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, nor did any profit or gain accrue to him for the purpose of Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Appeals allowed in part.