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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more