Skip to main content

Supreme Court ruling gives clarity on carrying forward tax losses

In what could benefit companies making acquisitions and internal restructuring, a recent Supreme Court judgement has given clarity on whether tax losses could be allowed in the event of a change of shareholding beyond 51%.

A problem that many Indian companies faced was the uncertainty on whether the buyer in a transaction — acquisition or restructuring of a group company — can add tax losses. The income tax department's view was that tax losses caused by the seller cannot be added as cost to the transaction. This was struck down by the SC.

In a case involving Amco Power Systems, the SC has allowed the company to accrue tax losses. Industry trackers said the whole debate was around Section 79 of the Income Tax Act, where the dispute was whether tax losses could be carried forward.

There are cases for and against on interpretation of beneficial owner versus registered shareholder for the purposes of carrying forward tax losses under the section.

The recent judgement is the first by the apex court on Section 79 and can impact other similar cases as well, said industry trackers. They said the judgement could also pave the way for clarity around funding in startups.

In the first week of October, industry body Assocham had sought a taxation-friendly environment from the finance ministry, especially around the shareholding pattern as section 79 of the Income Tax Act is proving to be a hindrance.

 Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-ruling-gives-clarity-on-carrying-forward-tax-losses/articleshow/49561126.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more