BACKGROUND
- Capital gains were charged for the first time via the Income Tax and Excess Profit Tax (Amendment) Act, 1947, which inserted section 12B under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Indian Finance Act, of 1949, virtually abolished this levy. The levy of capital gains was revived vide Finance (No. 3) Act, 1956 w.e.f. 1st April, 1957. Whether at the time of the introduction of capital gains in 1947 or at the stage of the revival of capital gains tax in 1956, the transaction of transfer of a capital asset by way of gift or transfer under irrevocable trust was not considered a transfer for the purpose of capital gains. In other words, the transfer of capital assets by way of gift or under an irrevocable trust was exempt. Such exemption was available to all classes of taxpayers, whether individual, HUF, firm, company, etc.
- Even under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (ITA), section 47(iii) of ITA provided exemption from capital gains on the transfer of capital assets by way of gift or under an irrevocable transfer. Such exemption was available to all classes of taxpayers. However, vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, w.e.f. 1st April, 2025 (AY 2025–26 and onwards), section 47(iii) of ITA is substituted to provide that exemption on the transfer of a capital asset by way of gift or under an irrevocable transfer available only to individuals, and HUF.
- Explanatory Memorandum to Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024 provides that amendment is carried out to (a) widen the tax base and act as an anti-avoidance measure, (b) section 50CA and section 50D of ITA are on statute book providing deeming consideration aiming to bolster anti-avoidance provisions, (c) taxpayers have argued in multiple judicial precedents that transaction of gift of shares by company is exempt under section 47(iii) of ITA (d) and (iv) to target tax avoidance and erosion of India tax base.
- Though the Explanatory Memorandum to Finance (No. 2) Bill 2024 provides that amendment is carried out to widen the tax base and target tax avoidance, there is no express mention that a transaction of gift by taxpayers other than individual and HUF will result in capital gains taxation.
WHETHER CORPORATE ENTITY CAN MAKE A VALID GIFT?
- Before delving into the tax implications arising from the transfer of capital assets by way of gift by a corporate entity, it may be of utmost importance to understand the legality of the corporate entity making a gift.
- Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TOPA) defines gift to mean a transfer of certain existing moveable or immoveable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Section 5 of TOPA provides that the transfer of property shall be carried out by a living person, and the living person includes the company. Accordingly, a corporate entity is also a person who can make a gift.
- In following judicial precedents, it has been held that the corporate entity can make a valid gift.
- DP World (P) Ltd [2012] 103 DTR 166 (Delhi Trib.) — There is no restriction on a company to make a gift. As long as a donor company is permitted by its Articles of Association to make a ‘gift’, it can do so.
- Nerka Chemicals [2014] 103 DTR 249 (Bombay HC) — Relied on DP World (supra). Bombay HC held that a corporate gift is a valid transaction.
- KDA Enterprises Private Ltd [ITA No. 2662/Mum/2013] (Mumbai Trib.) — Corporates are competent to make and receive gifts, and natural love and affection are not necessary requirements for making gifts. The only requirement for a company to make gifts is to have the requisite authorization in the Memorandum of Association or Article of Association.
- PCIT vs. Redington (India) Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298 (Madras):
- It seems that there is no express denial under the law for a corporate entity making the gift of its assets. So long as the Memorandum of Association and/or Article of Association authorizes the gift of its assets, a company can make the gift.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND ABSENCE OF ANY ELEMENT, THE CHARGE FAILS
- Section 45(1) of ITA is a principal charging provision for taxing capital gains income. Section 45(1) of ITA provides that any profits and gains arising from the transfer of capital assets effected in the previous year be chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘capital gains’ and shall be deemed to be income of the previous year in which the transfer took place.
- Section 48 of ITA provides for a mode of computation of capital gains income. Section 48 of ITA requires a reduction of expenditure in relation to the transfer of capital assets, cost of acquisition, and cost of improvement from the full value of consideration.
- Judicially, it is well settled that charging provision and computation provision form integrated code. In order to create an effective charge for capital gains income, the transaction shall be covered by a charging provision as well as a computation provision. Where a transaction is not covered by computation provision, the transaction falls outside the scope of the charging provision itself.
- Reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of CIT vs. B C SrinivasaSetty [1981] 128 ITR 294. In this case, SC was concerned with the computation of gains arising on the transfer of goodwill of business. In the absence of the cost of acquisition of goodwill, SC held such asset is not covered within the fold of section 45 of ITA. Relevant observations from SC rulings are as under:
“8. Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings section 45 into play. To determine whether the goodwill of a new business is such an asset, it is permissible, as we shall presently show, to refer to certain other section of the head “Capital gains”. Section 45 is a charging section. For the purpose of imposing the charge, Parliament has enacted detailed provisions in order to compute the profits or gains under that head. No existing principle or provision at variance with them can be applied for determining the chargeable profits and gains. All transactions encompassed by section 45 must fall under the governance of its computation provisions. A transaction to which those provisions cannot be applied must be regarded as never intended by section 45 to be the subject of the charge. This inference flows from the general arrangement of the provisions in the Income-tax Act, where under each head of income the charging provision is accompanied by a set of provisions for computing the income subject to that charge. The character of the computation provisions in each case bears a relationship to the nature of the charge. Thus, the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. Otherwise, one would be driven to conclude that while a certain income seems to fall within the charging section, there is no scheme of computation for quantifying it. The legislative pattern discernible in the Act is against such a conclusion. It must be borne in mind that the legislative intent is presumed to run uniformly through the entire conspectus of provisions pertaining to each head of income. No doubt there is a qualitative difference between a charging provision and a computation provision. Ordinarily, the operation of the charging provision cannot be affected by the construction of a particular computation provision. But the question here is whether it is possible to apply the computation provision at all if a certain interpretation is pressed on the charging provision. That pertains to the fundamental integrity of the statutory scheme provided for each head.”
- Reference may also be made to the SC ruling in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai vs. CIT [1985] 156 ITR 509. In this case, SC was concerned with the determination of the full value of consideration accruing or received by a partner on the contribution of the personal asset to the firm. In the absence of a determination of consideration on the transfer of capital assets, SC held that the case of a contribution of capital assets into the firm is outside the scope of the capital gains chapter. Relevant observations from the ruling are as under:
“In CIT vs. B.C. SrinivasaSetty [1981] 128 ITR 294 this Court observed that the charging section and the computation provisions under each head of income constitute an integrated code, and when there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such a case was not intended to fall within the charging section. On the basis of that proposition, the learned counsel for the assessee has urged that section 45 is not attracted in the present case because to compute the profits or gains under section 48, the value of the consideration received by the assessee or accruing to him as a result of the transfer of the capital asset must be capable of ascertainment in monetary terms. The consideration for the transfer of the personal assets is the right that arises or accrues to the partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of the profits from time to time and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from the partnership, to get the value of a share in the net partnership assets as on the date of the dissolution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges. The credit entry made in the partner’s capital account in the books of the partnership firm does not represent the true value of the consideration. It is a notional value only, intended to be taken into account at the time of determining the value of the partner’s share in the net partnership assets on the date of dissolution or on his retirement, a share which will depend upon a deduction of the liabilities and prior charges existing on the date of dissolution or retirement. It is not possible to predicate beforehand what will be the position in terms of monetary value of a partner’s share on that date. At the time when the partner transfers his personal assets to the partnership firm, there can be no reckoning of the liabilities and losses that the firm may suffer in the years to come. All that lies within the womb of the future. It is impossible to conceive of evaluating the consideration acquired by the partner when he brings his personal asset into the partnership firm when neither the date of dissolution or retirement can be envisaged nor can there be any ascertainment of liabilities and prior charges which may not have even arisen yet. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that the consideration which a partner acquires on making over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital can fall within the terms of section 48. And as that provision is fundamental to the computation machinery incorporated in the scheme relating to the determination of the charge provided in section 45, such a case must be regarded as falling outside the scope of capital gains taxation altogether.”
- It may also be observed that in the context of the capital gains Chapter, SC, in the case of PNB Finance Ltd vs. CIT [2008] 307 ITR 75, held that in the absence of the determination of the cost of undertaking, the amount received on compulsory acquisition of undertaking cannot fall within the scope of section 45 of ITA.
- Reference may also be made to the SC ruling in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran vs. CST [1985] 155 ITR 144 rendered under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 (‘Sales Tax Act’) as applied to the Union Territory of Delhi. The case revolved around the interpretation of Sections 14 and 15 of the Sales Tax Act. Cotton yarn was classified as one of the goods of special importance in inter-state trade or commerce as envisaged by Section 14 of the Sales Tax Act. Section 15 of the Sales Tax Act provided that sales tax on goods of special importance should not exceed a specified rate and further that they should not be taxed at more than one stage. The issue arose because the stage itself had not been clearly specified, and accordingly, it was not clear at what stage the sales tax would be levied. The Financial Commissioner held that in the absence of any stage, there was a lacuna in the law and consequently, cotton yarn could not be taxed under the sales tax regime. The Delhi High Court reversed the decision of the Financial Commissioner. However, SC held that the single point at which the tax may be imposed must be a definite ascertainable point, and in the absence of the same, tax shall not be levied. While rendering the ruling, SC has made the following observations which are worth quoting:
“The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom the levy is imposed and who is obliged to pay the tax, the third is the rate at which the tax is imposed, and the fourth is the measure or value to which the rate will be applied for computing the tax liability. If those components are not clearly and definitely ascertainable, it is difficult to say that the levy exists in point of law. Any uncertainty or vagueness in the legislative scheme defining any of those components of the levy will be fatal to its validity.”
SC ruling in the case of Govind Saran Ganga Saran (supra) has been quoted with approval by the Constitution Bench of SC in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466.
- From the above, it is clear that, in order to create an effective charge, there shall be the presence of all the elements that go into the computation of capital gains income. The absence of any element that goes into the computation of capital gains will be fatal to the levy itself.
WHETHER THE TRANSACTION OF THE GIFT INVOLVE ANY CONSIDERATION?
- The term ‘gift’ is not defined under ITA. Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, of 1882 defines ‘gift’ as under:
“Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee
- Reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of Sonia Bhatia vs. the State of U.P., [AIR 1981 SC 1274]. Section 5(6) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (UP Act) as it stood at the relevant time provided that in determining the ceiling area any transfer of land made after 24th January, 1971 should be ignored and not taken into account. Clause (b) of the proviso to section 5(6) of the UP Act carves out an exception and states that section 5(6) of the UP Act shall not apply to a transfer proved to the satisfaction of the Prescribed Authority to be in good faith and for adequate consideration under an irrevocable instrument. Explanation II to said proviso places the burden of proof that a case fell within clause (b) of the proviso on the party claiming its benefit. On 28th January, 1972, the donor gifted away certain lands in favor of his granddaughter, the appellant, daughter of a pre-deceased son. The gift having been made after the prescribed date; the Prescribed Authority ignored the gift for purposes of section 5(6) of the UP Act. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that a gift could not be said to be a transfer without consideration because even love and affection may provide sufficient consideration and hence the condition regarding adequate consideration would not apply to a gift. SC held that the gift does not involve adequate consideration and hence case does not fall within the carve-out in the said proviso. The relevant extracts from the ruling are as under:
“To begin with, it may be necessary to dwell on the concept of gift as contemplated by the Transfer of Property Act and as defined in various legal dictionaries and books. To start with, Black’s Law Dictionary (Fourth Edition) defines gift thus:
“A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration.A parting by the owner with property without pecuniary consideration. A voluntary conveyance of land, or transfer of goods, from one person to another made gratuitously, and not upon any consideration of blood or money”.
A similar definition has been given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) where the author defines gift thus:
“Something that is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation; a voluntary transfer of real or personal property without any consideration or without a valuable consideration- distinguished from sale.”
Volume 18 of Words & Phrases (Permanent Edition) defines gift thus:
“A ‘gift’ is a voluntary transfer of property without compensation or any consideration. A ‘gift’ means a voluntary transfer of property from one person to another without consideration or compensation.”
In Halsbury’s Laws of England (Third Edition-Volume 18) while detailing the nature and kinds of gifts, the following statement is made.
“A gift inter vivos (a) may be defined shortly as the transfer of any property from one person to another gratuitously. Gifts then, or grants, which are the eighth method of transferring personal property, are thus to be distinguished from each other, that gifts are always gratuitous, grants are upon some consideration or equivalent.
Thus, according to Lord Halsbury’s statement the essential distinction between a gift and a grant is that whereas a gift is absolutely gratuitous, a grant is based on some consideration or equivalent. Similarly in Volume 38 of Corpus Juris Secundum, it has been clearly stated that a gift is a transfer without consideration, and in this connection, while defining the nature and character of a gift the author states as follows:
“A gift is commonly defined as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another, without any consideration or compensation therefor. Any piece of property which is voluntarily transferred by one person to another without compensation or consideration. A gift is a gratuity, and an act of generosity, and not only does not require a consideration but there can be none; if there is a consideration for the transaction it is not a gift.”
It is, therefore, clear from the statement made in this book that the concept of gift is diametrically opposed to the presence of any consideration or compensation. A gift has aptly been described as a gratuity and an act of generosity and stress has been laid on the fact that if there is any consideration then the transaction ceases to be a gift.
Under section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, the gift is defined thus:
“‘Gift’ is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.”
Thus, s. 122 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly postulates that a gift must have two essential characteristics-(1) that it must be made voluntarily, and (2) that it should be without consideration. This is apart from the other ingredients like acceptance, etc. Against the background of these facts and the undisputed position of law, the words, ’transfer for adequate consideration’ used in clause (b) of the proviso clearly and expressly exclude a transaction that is in the nature of a gift and which is without consideration. Love and affection, etc., may be motive for making a gift but is not a consideration in the legal sense of the term.”
- Reference may also be made to Shakuntala vs. the State of Haryana, [AIR 1979 SC 843] wherein the transaction of gift is explained as under:
“It is, therefore, one of the essential requirements of a gift that it should be made by the donor ‘without consideration’. The word ‘consideration’ has not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act, but we have no doubt that it has been used in that Act in the same sense as in the Indian Contract Act and excludes natural love and affection…. It would thus appear that it is of the essence of a gift as defined in the Transfer of Property Act that it should be without ‘consideration’ of the nature defined in Section 2 (d) of the Contract Act”
- Reference may be made to the Madras HC ruling in the case of CIT vs. ParmanandUttamchand [1984] 146 ITR 430. In this case, the taxpayer was carrying on the business of money lending. On the event of grahapravesham, taxpayer received gifts from relatives, friends, and well-wishers which included some of the borrowers of the taxpayer. Tax authorities brought this amount to tax as income. In this regard, refer following observations from the HC ruling dealing with the meaning of gift.
“Under the general law of gifts, a voluntary or gratuitous payment is a gift. The absence of quid pro quo is regarded as an essential element of a gift. For purposes of taxation on income, however, it was said that these characteristics of gifts were to be regarded as indecisive and treated with indifference. It was said that the receipt of gifts should be considered from the point of view of the recipient, more especially in the context of the recipient’s walk of life. If the recipient, it was argued, receives the so-called gift by virtue of his employment or by virtue of his vocation, profession, or calling, then the gift, it was said, must be seen in a totally different light. In such cases, it was said, the receipts cannot escape being regarded as income, even though the person who made the payments did so voluntarily and intended it to be taken as a mere bounty.”
- Reference may be made to the Bombay HC ruling in the case of CED vs. NarayandasGattani [1982] 138 ITR 670. In this case, there was some dispute between the deceased and two of his sons regarding the earnings and the ownership of certain properties. To end the controversy, the deceased, out of his sweet will, gave ₹31,000 to one of his sons and ₹51,000 to the other, with the condition attached that the sons would relinquish all their rights over disputed properties. The sons, on receiving the said amounts, executed relinquishment deeds in respect of the said properties. Thereafter, the deceased and his sons entered into a partnership and the sons invested the above mentioned amounts as their capital in the firm. On the deceased’s death, the Assistant Controller included the said amounts in the deceased’s estate under section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 on the ground that the deceased had gifted the money and was not entirely excluded from its enjoyment because it had been invested in the partnership firm in which the deceased was also a partner. The Appellate Controller sustained the Assistant Controller’s order. On the second appeal, the Tribunal set aside the Appellate Controller’s order on the ground that the impugned transaction was not a “gift” at all. Bombay HC held that the impugned transaction was not without consideration and hence not a gift. Relevant observations from the HC ruling are as under:
“The concept of gift is that it has to be without consideration whatsoever except the consideration of love and affection in certain cases. The moment it is demonstrated that there was some consideration for the transfer, the transaction will be anything but a gift. The consideration can be the settling of a future probable dispute or even getting an admission from the party which will preclude the raising of a dispute. In the instant case, the Tribunal had concluded that there was a certain amount of mutuality in the impugned transaction and that it was not without consideration, the consideration being to put the affairs beyond the pale of controversy by obtaining the deed of relinquishment and giving the sons funds so as to enable them to start their own business, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the recitals contained in the two relinquishment deeds executed by the sons, the impugned transactions were not gifts.”
- Reference may be made to Madras HC ruling in the case of PCIT vs. Redington Ltd [2021] 430 ITR 298 dealing with a gift by a company to a step-down subsidiary the concept of gift has been explained by HC as under:
“40. As noticed above, the Tribunal in the impugned order from paragraphs 72 to 79 examined the aspect as to whether a company/corporate body can execute a valid gift and concluded that a company is a person both for the purposes of the TP Act and the Gift Tax Act, 1958 and can make a gift to another company which is valid in law and accepted the contention of the assessee that it was entitled to gift its shares in RG to RC. Having held so, the Tribunal failed to examine whether the ingredients of section 122 of the TP Act have been fulfilled to qualify as a valid gift. Section 122 of the TP Act defines “gift” to be a transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called the donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. The essential elements of a gift are (i) absence of consideration; (ii) the donor; (iii) the donee; (iv) to be voluntary; (v) the subject matter; (vi) transfer; and (vii) the acceptance. The concept of gift is diametrically opposed to any person’s consideration or compensation. It cannot be disputed that there can be transactions that may not amount to a gift within the meaning of section 122 of the TP Act but would qualify as a gift for the purpose of levy of tax under the Gift Tax Act owing to the definition contained in section 2(iii) read with section 4 of the Gift Tax Act. Block Stone states that “gifts” are always gratuitous, grants or upon some consideration or equivalent. In several decisions, it has been held that for proving a document of the gift was executed with the free and voluntary consent of the donor, it must be proved that the physical act of signing the deed coincides with the mental act viz., the intention to execute the gift. The principles laid down in the Indian Contract Act relating to free consent would apply in determining whether the gift is voluntary.”
- Reference may be made to the recent ruling of Bombay HC in the case of Jai Trust vs. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 71 of 2016, order dated 8th March 2024]. In this case, the taxpayer gifted shares of the listed company to a private limited company and claimed exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA. There was a reassessment proceeding initiated against the taxpayer. The taxpayer challenged reassessment proceedings by filing a Writ Petition. Bombay HC held that (a) transfer of capital asset under a gift is not a transfer for the purpose of section 45 of ITA (b) reading of section 48 of ITA bears out that profits or gains can be measured only when the consideration is involved (c) section 50CA is not applicable as it was inserted w.e.f. 1st April 2017 and in any case, section 50CA applies only where consideration is received on transfer of capital asset being unquoted shares and does not apply when there is no consideration (d) section 50D is not applicable as it was inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and in any case, it applies only where consideration is received on the transfer of capital asset and does not apply when there is no consideration (e) A gift is commonly known as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another without any consideration. A gift does not require a consideration and if there is a consideration for the transaction, it is not a gift. In view of the above Bombay HC quashed the notice of reassessment. Relevant observations from the ruling are as under:
“18. Mr. Sharma’s reliance on Section 50CA of the Act in this regard has to be rejected because (a) Section 50CA of the Act was inserted with effect from 1st April, 2018 by the Finance Act, 2017 and (b) it applies to a capital asset being share of a company other than a quoted share (in this case shares transferred were quoted shares) and also applies only where the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. Mr. Sharma’s reliance on Section 50D of the Act also has to be rejected because (a) it was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013 and (b) there also the Section postulates receiving consideration and not a situation where admittedly no consideration has been received.
19. A gift is commonly known as a voluntary transfer of property by one to another without any consideration. A gift does not require a consideration and if there is a consideration for the transaction, it is not a gift. Since the reason to believe it is admitted that shares were transferred by the assessee to NCPL without consideration, certainly, it is a gift. In fact, it is not even the respondents’ case that is it not a gift. Mr. Sharma submitted, as an afterthought, that the assessee being a Trust it can be reasonably presumed that the transfer was for a consideration because anything a Trust does is for the benefit of its beneficiaries. It is not the case of the Revenue in the reasons to believe or in the order disposing objections or even in the affidavit in reply. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Sharma cannot be even considered. We cannot proceed on the hypothesis and deal with such a presumptuous argument. Moreover, if the transfer is not valid, the property still remains with the Trust and in such a situation, there can be no capital gain.”
- Reference may also be made to the AAR ruling in the case of Deere & Co., In re [2011] 337 ITR 277. In this case, the taxpayer company incorporated in the USA gifted the shares of the Indian company to the Singapore group company. The transaction was finished by way of a gift. The taxpayer company claimed that it was not liable to pay capital gains. AAR held that the taxpayer company was not liable to pay capital gains in view of the exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA. Relevant extracts from the ruling are as under:
“4. The learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand has argued that there is no element of love and affection attached to the gift. According to the ordinary meaning, “gift” means a thing given willingly to someone without payment. The learned counsel further brought to our notice the definition of “gift” given in section 122 of the Transfer Property Act 1882, “Gift” is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor to another called donee and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. The meaning of gift supra reflects no element of love and affection and therefore the contention of the Departmental representative in this regard is without substance. The gift of shares by the applicant to John Deere Asia (Singapore) is made without any consideration and therefore the transfer has to be held to be a gift.”
- The above rulings including SC rulings are an authority that the transaction of gift does not involve consideration. If a transaction involves consideration (whether direct or indirect), such cannot qualify as a gift. The absence of consideration is an essential characteristic of a valid gift.
- In the case where a corporate entity has made a valid gift, there is no involvement of consideration or the transaction can be said to be without consideration. In the absence of consideration, one of the essential elements for the computation of capital gains is not present and accordingly, there is no trigger of capital gains provision.
REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE PROVISO TO ERSTWHILE SECTION 47(III) AND THE SIXTH PROVISO TO SECTION 48 OF ITA TO SUGGEST THAT ABSENT CONSIDERATION, THERE CANNOT BE AN EFFECTIVE CHARGE
- The erstwhile proviso to section 47(iii) of ITA provided that exemption under section 47(iii) of ITA shall not be available for transfer of capital asset by way of gift or irrevocable trust of capital asset being shares, debenture or warrants allotted under ESOP to employees. In order to back up the charge and deny exemption, a sixth proviso to section 48 of ITA was inserted to provide that market value as on the date of transfer of capital asset under a gift or irrevocable trust shall be considered as the full value of consideration.
- It may be noted that when the exemption was denied under section 47 of ITA, there was a backup provision under section 48 of ITA providing for deemed full value of consideration. In the present case, though the transfer under a gift or irrevocable trust by any person other than individual or HUF is not provided for exemption under section 47(iii), there is no provision providing for the full value of consideration. In the absence of full value of consideration, there is no effective charge under the capital gains chapter.
ABSENT CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO RELEVANCE OF SECTIONS 50C, 50CA, AND SECTION 50D OF ITA
- Section 50C of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset being land or building is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable for stamp duty purposes, the value considered for stamp duty purposes shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Section 50CA of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset being unquoted shares is less than Rule 11UAA value, such Rule 11UAA value shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration. Section 50D of ITA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset is not ascertainable or cannot be determined, the fair market value of a capital asset on the date of transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration.
- The common thread that runs through sections 50C, 50CA, and 50D of ITA is accrual or receipt of consideration on the transfer of capital assets. In order to trigger these sections, it is the sine qua non that there shall be the presence of consideration. By definition, the transaction of a gift is without consideration, and accordingly, in the case of the transaction of a gift, there is no accrual or receipt of consideration. This proposition has been dealt with by Bombay HC ruling in the case of Jai Trust (supra) wherein HC observed that section 50CA and section 50D of ITA postulates receipt of consideration and in the case of gift transaction, there is no consideration involved.
- Accordingly, in absence of consideration, provisions of sections 50C, 50CA and 50D of ITA cannot be triggered.
THE ABSENCE OF AN EXEMPTION DOES NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF A CHARGE
- In order to bring the transaction within the tax net, the transaction shall be covered by the charging provision and shall be a backup computational provision. Where the transaction is not covered within the charging provision, the mere absence of exemption will not create an effective charge. In the case where the transaction is not covered by a charging provision and a specific exemption is provided, it may be construed as a draftsman’s anxiety to make the law clear beyond any doubt.
- In this regard, reference may be made to the SC ruling in the case of CIT vs. Madurai Mills Ltd [1973] 89 ITR 45. In this case, SC was concerned with capital gains liability in the hands of shareholders in case of liquidation of the company. It may be noted that SC held that in the absence of a charge under the India Income-tax Act, 1922, the absence of exemption does not result in the creation of a charge. Relevant extracts from the SC ruling are as under:
“If the language of sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act is clear and does not warrant the inference that distribution of assets on liquidation of a company constitutes sale, transfer or exchange, the said transaction of distribution of assets would not, in our opinion, change its character and acquire the attributes of sale, transfer or exchange, because of the omission of a clarification in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12B of the Act, even though such clarification was there in the third proviso of the section inserted by the earlier Act (Act 22 of 1947). It is well settled that considerations stemming from legislative history must not be allowed to override the plain words of a statute (see Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, twelfth edition, page 65). A proviso cannot be construed as enlarging the scope of an enactment when it can be fairly and properly construed without attributing to it that effect. Further, if the language of the enacting part of the statute is plain and unambiguous and does not contain the provisions which are said to occur in it, one cannot derive those provisions by implication from a proviso (see page 217 of Crates on Statute Law, sixth edition)”
- Reference may also be made to the Privy Council1 ruling in the case of CIT vs. Shaw Wallace [AIR 1932 PC 138]. In this case, the taxpayer received compensation for cessation of the agency. Privy Council held that such an amount received cannot be considered as income of the taxpayer. Privy Council held that even where the amount received was covered by the exemption provision, such was never income of the taxpayer. Refer following extracts from the Privy Council ruling.
“Some reliance has been placed in argument upon Sec. 4(3)(v ) which appears to suggest that the word ‘income’ in this Act may have a wider significance than would ordinarily be attributed to it. The sub-section says that the Act ‘shall not apply to the following classes of income’ and in the category that follows, clause (v) runs: ‘Any capital sum received in commutation of the whole or a portion of a pension, or in the nature of consolidated compensation for death or injuries, or in payment of any insurance policy, or as the accumulated balance at the credit of subscriber or to any such Provident Fund.’ Their Lordships do not think that any of those sums, apart from their exemption, could be regarded in any scheme of taxation as income, and they think that the clause must be due to the over-anxiety of the draftsman to make this clear beyond the possibility of doubt. They cannot construe it as enlarging the word ‘income’ so as to include receipts of any kind which are not specially exempted”
1 Rulings rendered by Privy Council are binding on all Courts except SC – refer ShrinivasKrishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango and others [1954 AIR SC 379], Delhi Judicial Service Association v State of Gujarat [1991 AIR SC 2176].
- Reference may also be made to International Instruments (P) Ltd vs. CIT [1982] 133 ITR 283 (Karnataka) wherein the following observations are made:
“As observed by the Privy Council in CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. AIR 1932 PC 138, just because an amount was exempted from tax under section 4(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, it was not to be treated as income when such amount could not be regarded as income under any scheme of taxation and such exemptions only indicated the over anxiety of the draftsmen to place the matter beyond any possible controversy. [See also the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Rani AmritKunwar vs. CIT (supra)].
On the above reasoning, with which we respectfully agree, a receipt that is income does not cease to be income even if exempted from income tax, and a receipt that is not income does not become income just because it is included as one of the items exempted from income-tax”
- Accordingly, in the absence of a specific exemption provision, it may be incorrect to contend that there is a charge of capital gains income.
AUTHOR’S VIEW
Considering that (a) for creation of effective charge, all elements of computation provisions have to be present, (b) the transaction of gift does not involve any consideration, (c) absent consideration, there is no trigger of deemed consideration provisions under
ITA, (d) absence of exemption does not result in creation of charge, (e) absent consideration, there cannot be computation of capital gains income, in view of the author, the taxpayer stands on a firm footing to urge that there cannot be capital gains
income in the hands of corporate entity on gift of a capital asset.
However, it may be noted that where the transaction involves some direct or indirect consideration, the transaction may itself lose the status of a gift as it involves consideration. Consequently, it may be difficult to claim non-taxability. Further, once the transaction involves consideration, sections 50C, 50CA, and 50D
of ITA, which provide for deemed consideration, may also apply.