Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Khoday Distilleries vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Khoday Distilleries vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 17, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Where the department held that on the Company allotting rights and bonus shares to its shareholders in a disproportionate manner, it had made a “gift”, HELD, rejecting the contention that:

(i) An allotment of shares is a “creation” of shares and not a “transfer” of shares. There is a vital difference between the two. An “allotment” is the creation of shares by appropriation out of the unappropriated share capital to a particular person. A share is a chose in action. A chose in action implies existence of some person entitled to the rights in action in-contradistinction from rights in possession. There is a difference between issue of a share to a subscriber and the purchase of a share from an existing shareholder. The first case is that of creation whereas the second case is that of transfer of chose in action. An allotment is not a transfer and does not attract s. 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act.

(ii) The issuance of bonus shares was nothing but mere capitalisation of the profits of the Company in respect of which certificates are issued to the shareholders entitling them to participate in the amount of the reserve but only as part of the capital. When a shareholder gets a bonus share the value of the original share held by him goes down. In effect, the shareholder gets two shares instead of the one share held by him and the market value as well as the intrinsic value of the two shares put together will be the same or nearly the same as the value of the original share before the bonus issue. The issuance of bonus shares does not amount to distribution of accumulated profit of a company. It would be a misnomer to call the recipients of bonus shares as donees of shares from the company.

Related Judgements

  1. CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court) 

    In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period; Read more ›
  2. Sudarshan Silks vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    The Tribunal deleted penalty on the finding that the assessee had been induced to offer undisclosed income on the assurance that penalty would not be levied. The frame of the question raised by the department in its appeal to the High Court did not challenge the perversity of the…
  3. Janatha Textiles vs. TRO (Supreme Court) 

    It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction, the purchaser’s interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise.Read more ›
  4. Steel Authority vs. STO (Supreme Court) 

    Where the Appellate Commissioner disposed of the appeal by a non-reasoned order, held that a statutory appeal could not be disposed of in that manner. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. Failure to give reasons…
  5. CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust (Supreme Court) 

    While merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a…