Skip to main content

Conversion of compulsory convertible preference shares into equity shares is not “transfer”

In the case of Periar Trading Company Private Limited (Taxpayer), the issue before the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)  was whether conversion of compulsory convertible preference shares (CCPS) into equity shares can be treated as “transfer” as per India Tax Laws (ITL) and whether the difference between the cost of acquisition of CCPS and market value of equity shares on the date of conversion attract capital gains taxation as per the ITL. The dispute involved in this case pertains to tax year prior to insertion of specific provision in the ITL which exempts such a conversion.

The Tribunal held that conversion of CCPS into equity shares cannot be regarded as an exchange, barter or swapping of one form of shares for other form. Rather, it is a case where the original shares (CCPS) ceased to exist upon its conversion into other form of shares (equity), not constituting a “transfer” and, hence, does not attract capital gains. The Tribunal placed reliance on a CBDT Circular clarifying that conversion of one type of share into another type of shares does not constitute “transfer” as also on a provision in the ITL in terms of which in the event of conversion of one type of shares into another, the cost of acquisition of erstwhile shares is deemed to be cost of acquisition of converted shares. The Tribunal further held that, adopting this view does not result in leakage of income, on the contrary taxing capital gain upon conversion would not only be against the legislative intention but also lead to double taxation.

Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/converaion_of_ccps/%24FILE/converaion_of_ccps.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more