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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more