Important Rulings -Section 56 (2) (viia), 56 (2) (x) and 56 (2) (viib) of Income Tax Act 1961

– Qasim Saif and Mahesh Jethani

finserv@vinodkothari.com

Section 56(2) (viia)

  • When shares of closely held company received without consideration or for inadequate consideration
  • Where shortfall in consideration as compared to Fair Market Value (FMV) exceeded Rs. 50,000
  • Recipient is:

(a) Firm

(b) closely held company

  • Then, FMV of such shares exceeding Rs. 50,000/- after reducing the value of consideration paid, if any, was considered as – Income from other Sources.

Section 56(2) (x)

Section 56(2)(vii)/(viia) is inoperative with effect from 1-4-2017

Clause (x) is inserted in section 56(2) to provide that the specified receipts [same as provided in Sec. 56(2)(vii)] will be taxable as income in the hands of any person, under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’

Sub-Clause (c) of Clause (x) of Section 56-Taxation of any property other than Money and Immovable Property: –

  • If received without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property shall be considered Income from Other Source
  • If there is inadequate consideration whereby the difference between FMV and consideration exceeds Rs.50,000/- then difference in FMV and consideration will be considered as IFOS

Property means the following capital asset of the assessee –

(i) immovable property being land or building or both;

(ii) share and securities;

(iii) jewellery;

(iv) archaeological collections;

(v) drawings;

(vi) paintings;

(vii) sculptures; or

(viii) any work of art.

(ix) Bullion

Reason for amendments

The Memorandum to the section explains the following-

“The existing definition of property for the purpose of this section includes immovable property, jewellery, shares, paintings, etc. These anti-abuse provisions are currently applicable only in case of individual or HUF and firm or company in certain cases. Therefore, receipt of sum of money or property without consideration or for inadequate consideration does not attract these anti-abuse provisions in cases of other assessee.”

Thus, it appears that through insertion of new provision, the scope of the existing anti-abuse provision is widened to make it applicable to all assessee and also clubbing section 56(2)(vii) & section 56(2) (viia).

 

Important Rulings on Section 56(2) (viia) and 56(2) (x)

 

Taxability of the credit to the general reserve by the amalgamated company

Aamby Valley Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Date: 22nd February 2019.

Background:

Section 56(2) (viia) is an anti-abuse provision which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering. It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation.

Increase in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV not give rise to any real income to the assessee. It is capital in nature

Judgement and conclusion:

This is an important judgement by Tribunal which deals with the taxability of the credit to the general reserve by the amalgamated company of the fair valuation of the assets received under the scheme of amalgamation. The Tribunal held that the transaction does not give rise to real income to the assessee and it thus cannot be treated as a business profit.

Provisions of Section 56 (2) (viia) will not be applicable if fair value of the shares received was not higher than the sacrifice suffered by taxpayer under the composition reorganisation scheme, as there is no incremental benefit to the shareholder.

Reserve directly credited to general reserve and not in P&L cannot be subjected to MAT.

Raising of Tax related Objection by RD when Income Tax Authority did not raise the same.

Casby Cfs Private Limited vs Casby Logistics Private Limited (Bombay High Court)

Date: 19th March 2015

Background:

In the instant case the question of law is that whether the RD could raise tax-related objections to the scheme of amalgamation though the ITA raised no objections? Whether the scheme was liable to be rejected based on the RD’s aforesaid objections?

One of the issue that was pointed out that the scheme was devised to evade capital gain tax by virtue of using the device of beneficial ownership and scheme, transferee is acquiring shares without consideration which will attract section 56 (2) (viia)

Judgement and conclusion:

Since the court was required to ensure that the scheme did not contravene any Act, the RD was not only entitled to, but was duty-bound, to bring to the HC’s notice any provision in the scheme that contravened any law. This included the Income tax law and aimed to ensure that the company did not use the HC sanction as a shield to protect itself from consequences of contravention of the law

That the ITA did not object did not prevent the RD from raising objections or making such observations with regard to the scheme as he/ she deemed fit, including those pertaining to tax laws

The HC has held that the RD is entitled to raise objections pertaining to income tax in a merger scheme, even though no objections were raised by the tax authorities.

Application of Section 56(2)(viia)/56 (2) (x) in case of Buy Back

Vora Financial Services P. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Date:29th June 2018

Background:

Section is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent laundering of unaccounted income under the garb of gifts. The primary condition for invoking the section is that the asset gifted should become a “capital asset” and property in the hands of recipient. If the assessee-company has purchased shares under a buyback scheme and the said shares are extinguished by writing down the share capital, the shares do not become capital asset of the assessee-company and hence s. 56(2) (viia) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee company

Judgement and conclusion:

A combined reading of the provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) and the memorandum explaining the provisions show that the provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) would be attracted when “a firm or company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested) “receives a property”, being shares in a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested)”.

Therefore, it follows the shares should become “property” of recipient company and in that case, it should be shares of any other company and could not be its own shares. Because own shares cannot be become property of the recipient company.

Accordingly, Tribunal was of the view was that the provisions of sec. 56(2) (viia) should be applicable only in cases where the receipt of shares become property in the hands of recipient and the shares shall become property of the recipient only if it is “shares of any other company”. In the instant case, the assessee herein has purchased its own shares under buyback scheme and the same has been extinguished by reducing the capital and hence the tests of “becoming property” and also “shares of any other company” fail in this case.

The tax authorities are not justified in invoking the provisions of sec. 56(2) (viia) for buyback of own shares.

Valuation of Share to be done as per Rule 11UA

Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

Date: 7th March 2018

Background:

Section 56(2)(viia) read with Rule 11UA, The “Fair Market Value” of shares acquired has to be determined by using the values of the underlying assets and not their market values

In the present case, the assessee has acquired shares of TEPL at Rs.5 per shares. The assessee claimed to have valued the shares of TEPL as per the provisions of Rule 11UA of the Rules. AO was of the view that the assets are to be valued at the fair market value which will increase the value of shares to 45.72 and difference Rs. 40.72 being subjected to tax.

Judgement and conclusion:

“Fair Market Value” of a property, other than an immovable property, means the value determined in accordance with the method as may be prescribed”

On the plain reading of Rule 11UA, it is revealed that while valuing the shares the book value of the assets and liabilities declared by the TEPL should be taken into consideration. There is no whisper under the provision of 11UA of the Rules to refer the Fair Market Value of the land as taken by the Assessing Officer as applicable to the year under consideration. Therefore, ITAT was of the view that the share price calculated by the assessee of TEPL for Rs. 5 per shares has been determined in accordance with the provision of Rule 11UA.

Applicability of section in case of “Gift” by one company to another.

Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)

Date: 15th May 2018

Background:

Huge volume of shares in a company were transferred by assessee to another company without any consideration and without any proper documentation being executed as per law, giving it name of “Gift”.

Question raised: Will the said transaction be covered by section 56(2)(viia) or is exempt from tax u/s 47(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)

Judgement and conclusion:

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the AO has correctly observed that gift by a corporation to another corporation is a strange transaction as there cannot be a gift between artificial entities/persons. The submissions filed by the Appellant are considered and not found to be tenable.

The assessee has to establish to the hilt, the factum, genuineness and validity of the transaction, the right to enter into such transaction especially when, revenue challenges its genuineness. There is no agreement/document that has been executed between group companies forming part of family realignment. To postulate that a company can give away its assets free to another even orally, can only be aiding dubious attempts at avoidance of tax payable under the Act unless it is supported by documentary evidence

It has been vehemently contested by authorities. CIT (DR) contented that transaction has been effectuated for avoiding payment of tax and to get out of the ambit of section 56 (2) (viia) of the Act. Hence benefit of exemption under section 47 (iii) can not be granted.

 

Application of Section in case of Bonus Issue

Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd (Supreme Court)

Date:13th March 1964

Background

There has been a constant flip flop by the CBDT on the issue that whether the provisions of the given section would apply on fresh issue of shares. As the ambiguity prevails the highly celebrated case can be referred for determining applicability of section on Bonus Issue.

Judgement and Conclusion

The apex court in the given case while adjudicating the issue of taxability on transfer of shares held that the Bonus shares were acquired “Without Payment of price and not without consideration” hence it can be implied that Section 56(2) (viia) would not apply in case of bonus issue.

Whether it is valid in law to assess the difference between the value of the shares allotted to the taxpayer and the consideration paid by it, as the taxpayer’s income?

Sudhir Menon HUF vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Date: 12th March 2014

Background:

Section 56(2)(vii) (c) (ii) provides that where an individual or a HUF receives any property for a consideration which is less than the FMV of the property, the difference shall be assessed as income of the recipient. The section does not apply to the issue of bonus shares because there is a mere capitalization of profit by the issuing-company and there is neither any increase nor decrease in the wealth of the shareholder as his percentage holding remains constant. Similar view can be taken while considering rights issue as well.

Judgement and conclusion:

Since Right Shares are allotted on the basis of original holding, it cannot be said that same have been allotted at a price less than the fair market value without consideration. Therefore, provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act are not applicable. Moreover, in view of specific provisions of Section 55(2)(aa)(iii) cost of acquisition of these shares will be taken to be the actual price paid by the shareholder and same is not to be adjusted by the amount of deemed income in terms of section 49(4) of the Act, applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(x) is not intended. However it shall be noted that in case the right is assigned to a person the given section would apply.

Valuation of share can be done only on basis of FMV and Not Market Value:

DCIT Mumbai vs Ozoneland Agro Pvt Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

Date: 2nd May 2018

Background

A.O. observed that two persons transferred their shares to the assessee at Rs.75.49 per share whereas, on the same day all the other shareholders transferred their shareholdings to the assessee at Re.1 per share. He observed that when the market rate is Rs.75.49/share, the assessee has purchased the shares at less than the market price i.e., Re.1 per share and therefore, the transactions attract provisions of section 56(2) (viia) of the I.T. Act.

The assessee however argued that under section 56(2)(viia) FMV as calculated under Rule 11U is to be considered and not market price. And FMV of the shares were negative and hence the section has no applicability in the given case.

Judgement and Conclusion

The Tribunal on due consideration ruled that the action of AO was outside the ambit of law and only FMV under Rule 11U can be considered and not Market price. Hence dismissing appeal by the AO.

Application of Section on acquisition of shares before 1st July 2010.

M/S Nathoo Ram Nityanand Timber vs Department of Income Tax (ITAT Lucknow)

Date: 30th August 2016

Background

In the given case the assessee had acquired shares prior to notification of section 56(2) (viia), that is before 1st July 2010 however the said case came into consideration after the notification of said section the Assessing officer, reassessed the income of assessee giving impact of section 56 (2)(viia). Which was challenged by the assessee

Judgement and Conclusion

The ITAT upheld the argument forwarded by the assessee and ruled that in case transaction had been undertaken before the notification that is to say before 1st July 2020 that income would not be readjusted based on provisions of section 56(2)(viia).

Section 56 (2) (viib)

Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:

Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause,—

(a)  the fair market value of the shares shall be the value—

(i)  as may be determined in accordance with such method as may be prescribed; or

(ii)  as may be substantiated by the company to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, based on the value, on the date of issue of shares, of its assets, including intangible assets being goodwill, know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature,

whichever is higher

Important Ruling on Section 56(2) (viib)

 

Discretion of Assessee to choose method of Valuation

Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)

Date: June 27, 2019 

Background:

The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA (2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors.

Judgement and Conclusion:

It is a well settled position of law with regard to the valuation, that valuation is not an exact science and can never be done with arithmetic precision.

Also, an important angle to view such cases, is that, here the shares have not been subscribed by any sister concern or closely related person, but by an outside investors like, Anand Mahindra, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala, and Radhakishan Damani who are one of the top investors and businessman of the country and if they have seen certain potential and accepted this valuation, then how AO or Ld. CIT(A) can question their wisdom.

Read our related write ups on the subject –

Employee share based payments: Understanding the taxation aspects

By Rahul Maharshi (rahul@vinodkothari.com), (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

Employee share based payments (ESBPs) are an effective way of incentivising employees. ESBPs work as a two way growth strategy for both company as well as the employees. On one hand, it helps the employees to participate in the growth of the entity and in turn reap out the benefits from it, on the other hand it helps the entity to boost the growth rate and align the vision of the employees with that of the company. The ESBPs work as a catalyst for the employee growth as well as the growth of the company.

The theme of this article revolves around the taxation aspects of different types of ESBPs, but before we proceed further, let us have a quick understanding about the different types of ESBPs. Read more

Project Rupee Raftaar: An Analysis

-Kanakprabha Jethani | Executive

Vinod Kothari Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

kanak@vinodkothari.com, finserv@vinodkothari.com

BACKGROUND

The Working Group on Developing Avenues for Aircraft Financing and Leasing Activities in India, constituted by Ministry of Civil Aviation submitted its report[1] on measures for developing this industry in the country. The Working Group was formed to examine the regulatory framework relating to financing and leasing of aircrafts. The idea was derived from the Cape Town convention and it has also been proposed to enact a bill in order to fully implement the convention. This project is based on the theme “Flying for All”. The Indian civil aviation market has been exhibiting tremendous growth for past years. There is an overwhelming increase in demand for passenger transportation for which airlines in India have placed orders for more than 1000 aircrafts. Moreover, Indian airlines have been relying on other countries for financing acquisition of aircrafts on export credit, loan or lease basis. This hair-triggers the need for India to have in place its own systems for financing of such acquisitions.

One of the motivations of the project is to ensure that the dependence of Indian aviation industry on import leases is reduced. Currently more than 90% of the aircrafts operating in the country are on import lease basis, and there is a huge monthly outflow of foreign exchange by way of lease rentals, which is not reported as ECB, since it is an operating expense.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE TO AIRCRAFT FINANCING AND LEASING

The key players in global aircraft financing and leasing market are Ireland and the US. Countries like China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Japan are emerging competitors in the market. The structures of aircraft financing, however, differ largely in all of these countries. The overall trends in the global arena can be evaluated on following bases:

Regional Outlook: through a research conducted for the Aviation Industry Leaders Report[2], it was concluded that North America is viewed as the most optimistic market player. Europe shows mixed signals due to market being strong and simultaneous slowing down of economy and other political issues. The Middle Eastern countries show a slow pace of growth and their models exhibit signs of stress. African airline market still has a lot of unrealised potential.

Financing Trends: sale and lease back transactions have become the most frequently used medium of aircraft finance over the world. Other forms of financing such as commercial bank debt, pre-delivering payment financing etc. have picked up pace. Also, traditional forms of financing such as export credit continue to be in operation but with reducing levels. Overall, the capital market remains very active and innovative in the aircraft finance sector.

Technology: new technology in aircrafts is being introduced frequently. However, implementation and commercialisation of the same continues to be a challenge. The Aviation Working Group’s Global Aircraft Trading System (GATS) proposed digitisation of transfer of lease deed ownership system which shall be expected to be activated by end of the year 2019.

CURRENT SCENARIO OF AIRCRAFT FINANCING IN INDIA

In terms of growth and advancement, India is far behind other Asian economies such as China, Singapore and Hong Kong. However, the Indian Aviation market has shown exponential rise in the past few years with an annual growth rate of 18.86% in 2017-18 and overall growth of 16.08% in passenger traffic. From 74 operational airports in 2013, it has reached a height of 101 operational airports in 2016. Expectations of having 190-200 operational airports by the end of 2040 are pointed out through various studies.

Currently, India has large aircraft order books, virtually all of which are leased through leasing companies located offshore. Under the regional connectivity scheme Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik (UDAN), the government has decide to lease out operations, maintenance, and development of certain airports under Public private Partnership (PPP) model.

Overall, India has immense potential for growth in aviation sector but little means to aid the growth. It is in need of systems that aid the growth in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.

AIRCRAFT FINANCING STRUCTURE

Why is it needed?

In the view of increasing demand and non-availability of own sources of aircraft financing, it is essential for India to set up its own structures for the same. Moreover, civil aviation sector is an important sector for development of the economy. In the civil aviation industry, aircraft financing is the most profitable segment and there are no entities in the country exploring this line of business. All the benefits from this gap are being enjoyed by foreign entities.

What will be the structure?

For this structure, GIFT-CITY in Gujarat has been identified as preferred destination for initiation of operations in this industry as it offers a tax regime competitive to that of leasing companies all over the world.

Barriers in the structure

The aforementioned structure will face following barriers:

  • GAAR prevents Indian financers from taking advantage of other jurisdictions.
  • Aircraft financing is not a specifically permitted activity for banks.
  • Units operating in GIFT-CITY not permitted to undertake aircraft financing.
  • Framework for setting-up of NBFCs in GIFT-CITY and provisions as to treatment of income from operating lease is not provided.
  • Taxes and duties:
  • GST of 5% on import of aircraft
  • GST on lease rentals
  • Interest amount which forms part of lease rentals in case of financial lease is not eligible for any tax benefit.
  • No exemptions from withholding taxes
  • Stamp duty on instruments and documents executed.

The working group has proposed corresponding changes and amendments to be made to overcome these barriers. The response of relevant authorities is awaited.

Tax implications of the structure

Particulars

Tax rates

IFSC-GIFT CITY (proposed structure) INDIA (not following the structure)
INCOME TAX
Corporate Tax Rate: 34.94

o   Year 1 to 5

0.00

o   Year 6 to 10

17.47

o   Year 11 onwards

34.94
Minimum Alternate Tax 10.48 21.55
Capital gains on sale of aircraft 0.00 34.94
Withholding tax

o   Operating lease rentals

0.00 2.00

o   Interest payment (USD debt)

0.00 5.46

o   Interest payment (INR debt)

0.00 0.00

o   Other payments

0.00 10.00
Dividend Distribution Tax nil 20.56
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Purchase of aircraft 0.00 0.00
Operating lease rentals 0.00 5.00
Underfinance lease(interest portion) 0.00 5.00
Other services nil 18.00
Stamp duty on lease related documents 0.00 3.00

ANALYSIS OF TAX IMPLICATIONS UNDER VARIOUS MODELS OF FINANCING

Following table shows an analysis of indirect tax implications from the point of view of lessee and compares the proposed structure with the existing practice of financing as well as situation if financing is done outside the proposed structure but in India.

This table is based on following assumptions:

  • Value of aircraft- Rs.3500 crores
  • Residual value- Rs.500 crores
  • Rate of interest- 7.5%
  • Lease tenure- 25 years
  • Processing fee- 2%

On the aforesaid assumptions, lease rental per annum would amount to Rs.306.63 crores

Amount (in Rs. crores)

Tax expenditure Ireland IFSC-GIFT CITY Rest of India
GST on lease rentals 15.3315 0.00 15.3315
Stamp duty 0.00 0.00 105
GST on other services 0.00 nil 12.6
Overall indirect tax expenditure 15.3315 0.00 27.9315

OVERCOMING THE BARRIERS

Recommendations have been made by the Working Group to various regulatory authorities in order to overcome various barriers that are a hindrance to establishment of India’s own structure of aircraft financing and leasing. Following table shows some of the major recommendations:

Authority Recommendations
RBI Confirm that the term “equipment” includes aircrafts or notify aircraft financing and leasing as permitted activity for banks or subsidiaries of banks.
Amend IBU circular to include equipment leasing and investment in capital of leasing entities in scope of activities of banks
Confirm that equipment leasing entities shall be eligible to register as NBFC in IFSC
Issue specific directions in regard to investment in or by foreign entities engaged in aircraft financing and leasing activities.
Tax authorities Capital gains on sale of leased aircrafts should be fully exempted.
GST on leasing aircraft should be made zero-rated.
Nil withholding tax should be specified for airline companies.
Transfer/novation of aircraft financing / leasing contracts to units in an IFSC should not be under the purview of GAAR, for both the lessee and lessor
SEBI Amend SEBI (AIF) Regulations to create a separate category of AIFs for investment in aircraft financing/leasing activities or permit greater concentration of investment in aircraft financing/leasing entities.
Clarify whether 25% investment cap by AIFs applies on investment in equipment and grant additional relaxations to AIFs investing in aircraft financing activities.
Create separate category of mutual funds of investment in entities engaged in aircraft financing and leasing activities.
Clarify which institution can invest in entities registered in IFSC.
IRDAI Amend IRDAI regulations permitting companies set up in IFSC to invest in entities engaged in aircraft financing and leasing activities.
Clarify whether investment of funds of policyholders’ in entities registered in IFSC be considered as funds invested in India only.
Others Clarify under aircraft rules that aircrafts of lessors cannot be detained against any statutory or other outstanding dues.
Entities like pension funds, insurance companies, employee provident fund organisations be allowed to invest directly or indirectly in aircraft financing and leasing activities.
SARFAESI Act not be applicable to aircrafts.
Gujarat Stamp Act to exempt aircraft financing and leasing from its purview.
Permit airlines to set up branch in IFSC.

CONCLUSION

It is absolutely evident that aircraft industry is on upsurge and will continue to be rising globally in the coming years. To meet the rising demand and expand the country’s hold in the aviation market the proposed structure provides a well-established groundwork through the proposed structure. All recommendations, if accepted and implemented in a proper manner, will enable India to pioneer a very profitable and growth-oriented aviation market.

 

[1] https://www.globalaviationsummit.in/documents/PROJECTRUPEERAFTAAR.pdf

[2] https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ie/pdf/2019/01/ie-aviation-industry-leaders-report-2019.pdf

 

Notional income tax on issue of shares by closely held applicable not applicable under Sec.56(2) (vii a), clarifies CBDT

-Million dollar question: Can the same be extended to Sec. 56(2)(x) ?

By Yutika Lohia (yutika@vinodkothari.com)

The abolition of Gift Tax Act in the year 1998 paved way for one of the most dynamic sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, – Section 56(2). Under this section all kinds of incomes and gains which were from sources other than the sources mentioned in the Act at that time was brought under the purview of Income Tax. Now, incomes and gains arising out of such transactions which were structured to pass on assets to some other party without any consideration or with inadequate consideration was subject to be taxed under this section.

While the Section 56(2) gave the authorities a tool to keep check on the transactions structured to merely launder unaccounted income, it also brought in many questions with itself. The CBDT has since been releasing clarification to address the questions as well as making changes to the section to cover all lose ends of laundering unaccounted incomes.

Recently Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circular dated 31st December, 2018 came up with a clarification to address the question –

Does the terms “receives” with regards to section 56 (2)(viia) include receiving shares of companies (where public are not substantially interested) by way of issues of shares by way of fresh issue/ bonus issue/ issue of rights shares/ transaction of similar nature?

Before we get to the clarification lets first analyse the sections – 56(2)(vii), 56(2)(viia) , 56(2)(viib) & 56(2)(x)

Analysis of Section 56(2)(vii) Section 56(2)(viia) Section 56(2)(viib) & Section 56(2)(x)

Section 56(2)(vii) Section 56(2)(viia) Section 56(2)(viib) Section

56(2)(x)

Applicable to Individual/ HUF Firm/ Company (closely held) Company (closely held) Person as per section 2(31) of the IT Act, 1961
Applicable on 1. Money

2. Immovable Property

3.Property other Immovable Property

Shares of closely held company 1.Issue of Shares 1. Money

2. Immovable Property

3.Property other Immovable Property

Applicable date From  1st October, 2009 to 31st March, 2017 From 1st June, 2010 to 31st March, 2017 From 1st April, 2013 From 1st April, 2017

 

Section 56(2)(viia) of the IT Act, 1961 was inserted by Finance Act, 2010. Referring to the memorandum of Finance Act, 2010[1] clause (viia) was incorporated in section 56 to prevent the practice of transferring unlisted shares at a price which was different from the fair market value (i.e no or inadequate consideration) of the shares and also include within its ambit transactions undertaken in shares of the company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested) either for inadequate consideration or without consideration where recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested).

In a layman’s term the act of receiving means to receive something which was already in existence and the act of creation of the that particular thing.

Similarly receipt of shares of shares by way of fresh issue/ bonus issue/ issue of rights shares/ transaction of similar nature is an act of creation of the securities and not transfer of the same. The CBDT in its circular dated 31st December, 2018has clarified the same. section 56(2)(viia) is applicable to transactions involving subsequent transfer of the shares form the initial receiver to some third party, and not time of issuance of such shares.

It is palpable that the shares would be treated as goods only when it comes into existence and issuance of shares is the act of bringing the shares into existence. The word “receives” with respect to section 56(2)(viia) would not include issuance of shares within its ambit.

The intent of insertion of clause (viia) to section 56 was to apply anti-abuse provision i.e transfer of shares for no or inadequate consideration, it is hereby clarified by the CBDT circular that section 56(2)(viia) of the Act shall apply in cases where a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested)  or a firm receives the shares  of the company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested) through transfer for no or inadequate consideration. Hence section 56(2)(viia) of the Act shall not be applicable on fresh issue of shares by the specified company.

Taxation of fresh issue of shares comes under the purview of section 56(2)(viib).

The Subhodh Menon case in context to Section 56

Recently the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Subhodh Menon[2], order dated 7th December, 2018 held that a shareholder cannot be taxed under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 so long as the shares are allotted to the holder on a proportionate basis (right shares), even if such shares are allotted at a value lower than the fair market value.

Drawing from the above case law, right shares issued at a value below the fair market value to individual/ HUF where allotment is disproportionate will not be taxable under section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the IT Act, 1961. Shares issued higher than proportion offered (based on shareholding) shall attract tax provisions.

Conclusion

The Union Budget 2017[3] introduced the section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act, 1961 widening the scope of Income from other sources and also clubbing section 56(2)(vii) & section 56(2)(viia).  Income Tax shall not be chargeable at normal rate for fresh issue of shares for closely held companies.

Since the offence that section 56(2)(viia) was trying to curb is the same as section 56(2)(x), the question still lies, whether the term “receives” clarified in the CBDT circular shall have the same analogy for Section 56(2)(x)? Simply put, whether section 56(2)(x) of the Act will also be limited to transfer of existing shares and not cover fresh issue of shares?


[1] https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/ub2010-11/mem/mem1.pdf

[2] http://itatonline.org/archives/wp-content/uploads/Subodh-Menon-shares.pdf

[3] https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/budget2017-2018/ub2017-18/memo/memo.pdf

Sudden prohibition for CA Valuers

By Yutika Lohia, (yutika@vinodkothari.com) (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

The income tax laws of our country have witnessed a lot vicissitudes over the years. Responding to the changing reforms as well as practices, the law makers have always tried to pace up with the dynamic economy. Chartered Accountants, in India, are widely accepted as tax professionals and in that capacity they play a very important role in the comprehending the income tax laws for the commoners. But a recent change by the IT Department would certainly not please the CA fraternity in the country. Read more

CBDT clarifies its stand on section 269ST – NBFCs will breathe a sigh of relief

By Abhirup Ghosh (abhirup@vinodkothari.com)

One of the major highlights of the Finance Budget 2017 was the introduction of section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The section was introduced with an intention to curb black money by reducing the scope of large ticket size cash transactions in the economy. As per the provisions of the section, no person can accept an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs or more: Read more

No pass through status to trusts if the beneficiaries are not identified on the date of institution of trust.

By Nidhi Bothra & Vijaylakshmi Agarwal, (finserv@vinodkothari.com)

Executive summary

This tax update summarises a recent ruling of Chennai Income Tax Appeallate Tribunal (“Chennai ITAT”) in the case of TVS Investments iFund Vs ITO[1] wherein the issue before Chennai ITAT was whether interest income of beneficiaries rolled over to another venture capital fund would be taxed in the hands of the iFund or in the hands of the new fund (TVS Shriram Growth Fund). While contemplating on the issue, the matter pertaining to determinacy of the trust/ fund and tests relating to the same to achieve pass-through status under the Income Tax Act was also briefly discussed. Read more

Section 94B: Thin capitalization rules may impede operations of NBFCs, by Nidhi Bothra & Kanishka Jain, 24th May, 2017

Genesis of the thin capitalization rules

The genesis of the thin capitalization rules lies in the distinction between tax treatment of debt and equity.  A company typically finances its projects either through equity and debt or mixture of both, equity being costly in terms of cost and ownership is less attractive than the debt financing where interest is a deductible expense. Debt is not only less expensive to service, it also reduces tax liabilities and enhances return on equity.

Read more