Thursday 13 August 2015

Taxability of unlisted shares received by closely held company, firm or LLP for inadequate consideration


Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides that the following shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head “Income from other sources”:

“where a firm or a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons, on or after the 1st day of June, 2010, any property, being shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested,—

(i) without consideration, the aggregate fair market value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the whole of the aggregate fair market value of such property;
(ii) for a consideration which is less than the aggregate fair market value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the aggregate fair market value of such property as exceeds such consideration :

Provided that this clause shall not apply to any such property received by way of a transaction not regarded as transfer under clause (via) or clause (vic) or clause (vicb) or clause (vid) or clause (vii) of section 47.

The FMV of shares of a closely held company shall mean FMV determined in accordance with rules 11U and 11UA.

A careful reading of Section 56(2)(viia) lay down the following essential ingredients for the taxability of unlisted shares received by closely held company or firm or LLP as the case may be:

(1). The shares (equity or preference) received, on or after 1-6-2010, are shares of a company in which the public is not substantially interested;

(2) These unlisted shares may be received from any person or persons and are received either:
·         without consideration and the aggregate fair market value (FMV) of such shares received during a previous year exceeds Rs. 50,000; or
·         for a consideration which is less than the FMV and the aggregate of differences between FMV and such consideration of all such shares received during a previous year exceeds Rs. 50,000.

(3) Such shares are not received by way of a transaction not regarded as transfer under clause (via)/(vib)/(vic)/(vid)/(vii) of section 47.

Issues that need to be addressed for Section 56(2)(viia):

Issue 1: Allotment of rights shares: In Sri Gopal Jalan & Co. vs. Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. [1964] 3 SCR 698, it was held that in Company Law the word “allotment” means appropriation out of previously unappropriated capital of a company, of a certain number of shares, to a person and till such allotment, the shares do not exist as such. It is only on allotment that the shares come into existence and in every case the words “allotment of shares” have been used to indicate the creation of shares by appropriation out of the unappropriated share capital to a particular person.
Thus, what is to be comprehended is that there is a vital difference between “creation” and “transfer” of shares. As stated hereinabove, the words “allotment of shares” have been used to indicate the creation of shares by appropriation out of the unappropriated share capital to a particular person. 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. Allotment is not a transfer. Hence, allotment of rights shares cannot also be taxed under section 56(2)(viia)(ii). However, in case of renunciation of rights shares, the above ratio is not applicable and the provisions of section 56(2)(viia)(ii) can be invoked in the hands of the recipient company or firm or LLP as the case may be.

Issue 2: Receipt of unlisted bonus shares: In Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. CIT [2009] 176 Taxman 142, the Supreme Court held that the idea behind the issue of bonus shares is to bring the nominal share capital into line with the excess of assets over liabilities. A company would like to have more working capital but it need not go into the market for obtaining fresh capital by issuing fresh shares. The necessary money is available with it and this money is converted into shares which really means that the undistributed profits have been ploughed back into the businessand converted into share capital. Therefore, fully paid bonus shares are merely a distribution of capitalized undivided profit. It would be a misnomer to call the recipients of bonus shares as donees of shares from the company. Thus, even bonus shares cannot also be taxed under section 56(2)(viia)(ii).

Reporting under Form 3CD (Revised):
Clause 28 of Form 3CD (Revised) requires the tax auditors to report as under:
“Whether during the previous year the assessee has received any property, being share of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, without consideration or for inadequate consideration as referred to in section 56(2)(viia), if yes, please furnish the details of the same.”

In accordance with Guidance Note on Tax Audit (2014 Edition) issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, the tax auditor should adhere to the following audit procedures for reporting under Clause 28 of Form 3CD (Revised):

♦ Obtain a list about the details of shares received, if any, by the assessee;

♦ Examine the receipt of shares from the books of account and other relevant documents. These shares, would be reflected in the books of account either as investments or as stock in trade;

♦ Where such shares are received without consideration, the same may not be reflected in the books of account and hence he need to examine such shares from the relevant documents such as share certificates issued, if any, DEMAT account statement etc.

♦ He should consider the provisions of Rule 11UA(1)(c) for determining:
(a) fair market value of quoted shares and securities received by way of transaction carried out through any recognized stock exchange
(b) fair market value of quoted shares and securities received by way of transaction carried out other than through any recognized stock exchange
(c) fair market value of unquoted equity shares
(d) fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than equity shares in a company which are not listed in any recognized stock exchange

♦ In case of the fair market value of unquoted shares and securities other than equity shares in a company which are not listed in any recognized stock exchange, a valuation report has been obtained by the assessee from a merchant banker or an accountant, the auditor should obtain a copy of the same [see SA 620 “Using the work of an Auditor’s expert”]


Wednesday 12 August 2015

Supreme Court Stays Imposition of Service Tax on Lawyers


Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, Justice A.K. Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy has stayed the Bombay High Court’s order, dated 15.12.2014 in the case of P.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India of dismissing the petition challenging levy of service tax on lawyers.

The Bombay Bar Association has challenged aforesaid order as well as the provision of Sub-clause (zzzzm) of clause (105) to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2011.

Few of the prominent questions of law, amongst others, as framed before SC are as below:

Whether the relationship between an advocate and a litigant is that of a provider and a service recipient or whether the relationship is that of a representative and a litigant?

Whether the impugned judgement is correct and legal in as much as levy of service tax on the provision of assistance to the court would hit the provision of justice either by the individual or a business entity as both are indisputably guaranteed under right to justice in terms of Article 21 read with Article 39A of the Constitution?

Bombay High Court 

It is pertinent to note that Bombay High Court while dismissing the petition held that

“The taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by a business entity, in relation to advice, consultancy and assistance in any branch of law, in any manner.”


“Legislature by inserting such provision has neither interfered with the role and function of an advocate nor has it made any inroad and interference in the constitutional guarantee of justice to all.  The services provided to an individual client by an individual advocate continues to be exempted from the purview of the Finance Act and consequently Service Tax but when an individual advocate provides service or agrees to provide services to any business entity located in the taxable territory, then, he is included and liable to pay Service Tax.’ The judgement also notes, ‘The Advocates and legal practitioners are known to pay professional taxes   and   taxes   on   their   income.     They   are   also   brought   within   the purview of service tax because their activities in legal field are expanding in the age of globalization, liberalization and privatization. They are not only catering to individuals but business entities.”

Apex Court says Aadhar not mandatory for availing welfare schemes of govt


The Supreme Court today ruled that Aadhar is not mandatory for availing various welfare schemes of the government. The court made it clear that even for availing facilities PDS, kerosene and LPG distribution system the card will not be mandatory. It barred the authorities from sharing personal biometric data collected for enrollment under the scheme.

A three judge bench took on record Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi's statement to this effect.
The court said the Centre shall give wide publicity through electronic and print media that the card is not mandatory to avail the schemes. The apex court was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the Aadhar scheme.


It directed that the information received by UIDAI shall not be used for any other purposes, except in criminal investigation with the permission of the court. A Constitution bench of the apex court will also decide the larger question of whether collecting biometric data for preparing Aadhar cards infringed an individual's privacy and if right to privacy was a fundamental right.