Section 45 r.w.s. 48 — Reduction in share capital of an investee company — Whether the investor can claim proportionate sum of capital reduced as capital loss — Held, No.
Facts:
The assessee had made an investment of Rs.24.84 crore in equity shares of a group company viz., TGL. Pursuant to a scheme of reduction u/s.100 of the Companies Act, the face value of the said company’s shares was first reduced to Rs.5 from Rs.10 and thereafter two equity shares of Rs.5 each were consolidated into one equity share of Rs.10. The assessee claimed its value of investment in TGL got reduced by half to Rs.12.42 crore and hence, after applying the indexation, a sum of Rs.22.22 crore was claimed as long-term capital loss. For the purpose it relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai (228 ITR 163) wherein it was held that reduction in face value of shares would amount to transfer, hence, such loss was allowable. According to the AO, the said decision was distinguishable as in that case, the shares involved were non-cumulative preference shares and further in terms of section 87(2)(i) of the Companies Act, 1956, the voting rights of the preference shareholders were also reduced proportionately. He further observed that in the present case the assessee had not received any consideration for reduction in the value of shares, nor any part of the shares had been passed to anyone else. Thus, according to him, there was no change in the rights of the assessee vis-à-vis other shareholders and, therefore, no transfer had taken place and, thus, the assessee was not entitled to the claim of long-term capital loss. On appeal the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on similar reasoning.
Before the Tribunal the assessee contended that the transaction did amount to a transfer and in support made the following submissions:
ISIN Number, a unique identification number allotted to each security, had changed, meaning thereby that the new shares were different from the old;
old shares had been replaced with the reduced number of new shares, hence, it should be treated as ‘exchange’ of shares which is covered by the definition of ‘transfer’;
as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai (228 ITR 163) the definition of transfer given in section 2(47) is an inclusive definition and, inter alia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right therein would also amount to transfer of a capital asset;
the principle laid down in the case of CIT v. G. Narsimhan (Decd) and Others, (236 ITR 327) squarely applies since the issue therein was regarding reduction of equity share capital;
as per the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Grace Collis & Ors., (248 ITR 323), the expression ‘extinguishment of any right therein’ can be extended to mean extinguishment of right independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. Thus, even extinguishment of right in a capital asset would amount to transfer and since the assessee’s right got extinguished proportionately, to the reduction of capital, it would amount to transfer.
As regards the absence of consideration, the other ground on which the claim for long-term capital loss was denied by the lower authorities, the assessee contended as under:
In the case of B. C. Srinivasa Setty (128 ITR 294) the proposition was not that if no consideration was received, then no gain can be computed but the proposition was that if any of the element in computation provision could not be ascertained, then computation provision would fail and such gain could not be assessed to capital gains tax. However, in the case of the assessee consideration was ascertainable, in the sense that same should be taken as zero. In this regard he relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Cadell Wvg. Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, (249 ITR 265).
If the idea was not to subject zero consideration transaction to capital gain tax u/s.45, then there was no need for clause (iii) for gifts in section 47.
The assessee concluded by submitting that during the process of reduction of share capital, transfer had taken place and consideration received by the assessee should be considered as zero and, therefore, capital loss should be allowed.
Held:
According to the Tribunal, in the case of Cadell Wvg. Mill Pvt. Ltd. relied on by the assessee, the Bombay High Court specifically declined to entertain the argument that the cost of tenancy right should be taken at zero because according to it, that would amount to charging of capital value of the asset to tax and not capital gain.
In the case of reduction of capital, the Tribunal noted that nothing moves from the coffers of the company and, therefore, it was a simple case of no consideration which cannot be substituted to zero. It further noted that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B. C. Srinivasa Setty, the Legislature had introduced specific provision wherein cost of acquisition of goodwill was to be taken at nil. Similar amendments were made to specify the cost with reference to trademark, cost of right to manufacture or produce or process any article or thing, etc. Therefore, wherever the Legislature intended to substitute the cost of acquisition at zero, specific amendment has been made. In the absence of such amendment it has to be inferred that in the case of reduction of shares, without any apparent consideration, that too in a situation where the reduction has no effect on the right of shareholder with reference to the intrinsic rights on the company, the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained and, therefore, the provisions of section 45 would not be applicable. For the purpose it also relied on the decisions in the cases of Mohanbhai Pamabhai and also in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai.
Further with the help of example, the Tribunal explained that even after reduction of capital, the net worth of the company remained the same and the share of every shareholder also remained the same. There was no change in the intrinsic value of the shares and even the shareholder’s rights vis-àvis other shareholders as well as vis-à-vis company remained the same. There was thus no loss that can be said to have actually accrued to the shareholder as a result of reduction in the share capital. The Tribunal further observed that there would also no change even in the cost of acquisition of shares which the shareholder would be entitled to claim as deduction in computing the gain or loss as and when the said shares are transferred or sold in future as per section 55(v).
