Bombay High Court Upholds Revenue's View on Capital Gains Computation in Amalgamation Case. Assessee Not Entitled to Substitute Fair Market Value as on 1-1-1964 for Shares Acquired Under Sections 47 and 49 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 81
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case pertains to a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the assessee, M/s. Madhura Coats Ltd., arising from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee-company, incorporated in England, was associated with three Indian companies: Madhura Mills Co. Ltd., A & F Harvey Ltd., and J & P Coats (India) Ltd. The assessee held substantial shareholdings in these companies. Subsequently, J & P Coats (India) Ltd. and A & F Harvey Ltd. amalgamated with Madhura Coats Ltd., and the assessee received shares of Madhura Coats Ltd. in exchange for its shares in the amalgamating companies. Later, the assessee sold some of these shares of Madhura Coats Ltd. and claimed a capital loss. In computing the capital gain/loss, the assessee sought to substitute the fair market value as on 1st January 1964 of the shares of the amalgamating companies as the cost of acquisition of the shares sold, under Section 55 of the Act. The Assessing Officer rejected this claim, and the Tribunal upheld the rejection. The two questions referred to the High Court were: (1) whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to exercise the option to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 of the shares of the amalgamating companies as cost of acquisition under Section 55; and (2) if the answer to the first question is negative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for computing capital gains, the shares should be valued on cost basis and not on yield method. The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court held that since the shares were acquired in an amalgamation which is not regarded as a transfer under Section 47, the cost of acquisition is determined under Section 49 as the cost to the amalgamating company. Consequently, the option under Section 55(2) to substitute fair market value as on 1-1-1964 is not available. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's view that the yield method is not applicable for determining cost of acquisition.

Headnote

A) Income Tax - Capital Gains - Cost of Acquisition in Amalgamation - Sections 47, 49, 55 of Income Tax Act, 1961 - The assessee-company, having acquired shares of Madura Coats Ltd. through amalgamation of J & P Coats (India) Ltd. and A & F Harvey Ltd., sold those shares. The assessee sought to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 of the shares of the amalgamating companies as cost of acquisition under section 55. The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to such substitution because the shares were acquired in a transaction not regarded as a transfer under section 47, and the cost of acquisition under section 49 is the cost to the amalgamating company. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view, holding that the option under section 55(2) to substitute fair market value is not available when the asset was acquired under a transaction referred to in section 47, as the cost of acquisition is deemed under section 49. (Paras 1-5)

B) Income Tax - Valuation of Shares - Cost Basis vs. Yield Method - The Tribunal held that for computing capital gains, the shares sold by the assessee should be valued on the basis of cost and not on the basis of yield method. The High Court affirmed this, noting that the yield method is not applicable for determining cost of acquisition under the Act. (Paras 2-5)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the assessee-company was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 1st January 1964 of shares of amalgamating companies as cost of acquisition of shares sold, under section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the shares should be valued on cost basis and not yield method.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964, and that the shares should be valued on cost basis.

Law Points

  • Capital gains computation
  • cost of acquisition in amalgamation
  • substitution of fair market value under section 55
  • sections 47 and 49 of Income Tax Act
  • 1961
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 120

Income Tax Reference No. 467 of 1987

2005-08-09

V.C. Daga, A.S. Aguiar

Mr. J.D. Mistry i/b. M/s. Kanga & Co. for Applicant, Mr. Ashok Kotangle for Respondent

M/s. Madhura Coats Ltd.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City II, Bombay

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Remedy Sought

The assessee sought a ruling that it was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 of shares of amalgamating companies as cost of acquisition of shares sold, and that the shares should be valued on yield method.

Filing Reason

The assessee was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order holding that it was not entitled to substitute fair market value and that cost basis should be used for valuation.

Previous Decisions

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.4150/Bom/82 dated 31.7.86 for assessment year 1978-79 held against the assessee on both issues.

Issues

Whether the assessee was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 of shares of amalgamating companies as cost of acquisition under Section 55 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that for computing capital gains, the shares should be valued on cost basis and not on yield method.

Submissions/Arguments

The assessee argued that it should be allowed to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 as cost of acquisition under Section 55. The Revenue argued that since the shares were acquired in an amalgamation, the cost of acquisition is governed by Section 49, and the option under Section 55 is not available.

Ratio Decidendi

Where shares are acquired in an amalgamation which is not regarded as a transfer under Section 47 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the cost of acquisition is determined under Section 49 as the cost to the amalgamating company. Consequently, the option under Section 55(2) to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 is not available. The yield method is not applicable for determining cost of acquisition.

Judgment Excerpts

The following questions of law arising from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.4150/Bom/82 dated 31.7.86 for the assessment year 1978-79 have been referred to this Court for its opinion under Section 256(1) of the ITA Act, 1961 at the instance of the assessee, viz. M/s.Madhura Coats Ltd. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, considering the provisions of sections 47, 49 and 55 of the Act, the assessee-company was not entitled to exercise the option to substitute the fair market value as on 1st January 1964, of the shares of J & P Coats (India) Ltd., and A & F Harvey Ltd., as cost of acquisition of shares of Madura Coat Ltd. sold by it, under sec.55 of the Act in computing the capital gain or loss?

Procedural History

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) passed an order in ITA No.4150/Bom/82 dated 31.7.86 for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee sought a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Tribunal referred the questions to the High Court. The High Court heard the reference and delivered judgment on 9th August 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Income Tax Act, 1961: 47, 49, 55, 256(1)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Invalidity of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Due to Violation of Natural Justice. Caste Validity Certificate of Petitioner Belonging to Thakar Tribe Restored as Committee Failed to Provide Opportunity of Hea...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Section 9 Petition for Injunction in Arbitration Dispute Over Development Agreement. Court holds that disputes regarding termination of a development agreement are arbitrable and that interim relief under Section 9 cannot ...