| COURT: | ITAT Delhi |
| CORAM: | Bhavnesh Saini (JM), L. P. Sahu (AM) |
| SECTION(S): | 28(iv), 47(vii), 56(2)(viia) |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | amalgamation, capital gains |
| COUNSEL: | P.J. Pardiwalla, Vijay Mehta |
| DATE: | February 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | February 27, 2019 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2012-13 |
| FILE: | Click here to view full post with file download link |
| CITATION: | |
| S. 28(iv)/ 56(2)(viia)/ 47(vii): S. 56(2)(viia) is an anti-abuse provision which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering. It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation. Increase in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV not give rise to any real income to the assessee. It is capital in nature. Amendment to s. 47(vii) by FA 2012 is clarificatory & retrospective | |
The question, therefore, before us is, Whether the provisions of section 47(vii) as amended by Finance Act 2012 is retrospective in nature ? It is a fact that existing provision of section 47(vii) was not possible to comply with when amalgamating company is the 100% subsidiary of the amalgamated company. This is, in fact, was a defect in Section 47(vii) prior to the amendment. The amendment was made to cure this defect. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee above squarely apply to this case as the provisions of section 47(vii) prior to the amendment if read clause-(a) thereof, was unworkable and could not have applied in case, where amalgamating company is the owner of 100% shares of the amalgamating company
Recent Comments