• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Tax & Regulatory Services - News Alert

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2025

Membagikan "Tax & Regulatory Services - News Alert"

Copied!
3
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

*connectedthinking pwc

Background

• In the case of Navin Jindal1 (“the assessee”), the Supreme Court has analysed whether loss arising on transfer of rights is in the nature of long-term or short-term capital loss

Facts

• The assessee held 1500 equity shares in Jindal Iron

& Steel Company Ltd. (“JISCO”) on the basis of which he was entitled to subscribe to 1875 Partly Convertible Debentures (“PCDs”).

• The assessee renounced the rights in favour of a company and received Rs. 56,250.

• The assessee relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia2 and claimed the diminution in value of original shares as cost of acquisition while

1 Navin Jindal v. ACIT [2010-TIOL-03-SC-MUM]

2 Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 651 (SC)

computing capital gains on renunciation of rights.

Accordingly, in the return of income (“ROI”) for AY 1992-93, the assessee claimed a short-term capital loss (“STCL”) of Rs. 243,750 on renunciation of rights.

• In addition to the above, the assessee had earned long-term capital gains (“LTCG”) on sale of shares of Rs. 2,318,200.

• As per section 48(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), the assessee was entitled to a deduction of 60% of LTCG in excess of Rs. 15,000.

• The assessee claimed the deduction under section 48(2) of the Act on the LTCG before setting off the STCL on sale of rights.

• The AO contended that loss on sale of rights is a long-term capital loss (“LTCL”). Accordingly, the AO computed the deduction under section 48(2) of the Act on the net amount of LTCG after setting off the loss from sale of rights.

Period of holding of rights entitlement is independent of period of holding of original shares Tax & Regulatory Services

News Alert*

19 January, 2010

(2)

PricewaterhouseCoopers

Issue

• Whether loss resulting from renunciation of rights is a STCL or LTCL?

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court held as follows:-

• The right to subscribe for additional shares / debentures is a distinct, independent and separate right, capable of being transferred independently of the existing shareholding, on the strength of which such rights are offered.

• The right to subscribe for additional shares / debentures, on the strength of existing shareholding in the company, comes into existence when the company decides to come out with a rights offer. Prior to that, such rights though embedded in the original shareholding, remains inchoate. The same crystallises only when the rights offer is announced by the company.

• For the purposes of section 48 of the Act, one has to keep in mind that chargeability and computation go hand in hand, i.e. computation is an integral part of chargeability.

Therefore, it is only when the company decides to come out with a rights issue that the diminution in the value of original shares held by the assessee takes place.

• Hence, in order to determine the nature of gains / loss on renunciation of right to subscribe for additional shares / debenture, the crucial dates are the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares / debentures comes into existence and the date of transfer of such right.

• Accordingly, the loss on renunciation of rights by the assessee was held to be in the nature of STCL.

Conclusion

For the purpose of computing the nature of gains in hands of the assessee from renunciation of rights, the date on which the rights came into existence is of relevance and not the date of original shareholding on the basis of which such rights are issued.

(3)

For private circulation only Contact

Ahmedabad

President Plaza, 1st Floor Plot No 36 Opp Muktidham Derasar

Thaltej Cross Road, SG Highway Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380054 Phone +91-79 3091 7000

Bangalore

6th Floor, Millenia Tower 'D' 1 & 2, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 Phone +91-80 4079 6000

Bhubaneswar

IDCOL House, Sardar Patel Bhawan Block III, Ground Floor, Unit 2 Bhubaneswar 751009

Phone +91-674-253 2279 / 2296

Chennai

PwC Center, 2nd Floor 32, Khader Nawaz Khan Road Nungambakkam

Chennai 600 006

Phone +91-44 4228 5000

Hyderabad

#8-2-293/82/A/113A Road no. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500 034,

Andhra Pradesh Phone +91-40 6624 6600

Kolkata

Plot No.Y-14, 5th Floor, Block-EP, Sector-V, Salt Lake Kolkata 700 091, West Bengal Phone +91-33 2357 9100 / 2357 7200

Mumbai

PwC House, Plot No. 18A, Guru Nanak Road - (Station Road), Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050 Phone +91-22 6689 1000

New Delhi / Gurgaon Building No. 10, Tower - C 17th & 18th Floor, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon Haryana -122002 Phone : +91-124-3306000

Pune

'Muttha Towers' 5th Floor, Suite No. 8,

Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune 411 006 Phone +91-20 4100 4444

For more information :

[email protected]

The above information is a summary of recent developments and is not intended to be advice on any particular matter. PricewaterhouseCoopers expressly disclaims liability to any person in respect of anything done in reliance of the contents of these publications. Professional advice should be sought before taking action on any of the information contained in it. Without prior permission of PricewaterhouseCoopers, this Alert may not be quoted in whole or in part or otherwise referred to in any documents

© 2010 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. "PricewaterhouseCoopers", a registered trademark, refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a limited company in India) or, as the context requires, other member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity.

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Treatment of reimbursement of expenses The assessee challenged the action of the TPO of treating The TPO included the reimbursable expenses The CITA held that the TPO’s

Ltd.1 SET “the assessee” held that payment made by the assessee for acquiring broadcasting rights cannot be deemed to be income arising in India since, • the payer was not a resident

*connectedthinking pwc Background The Mumbai Tribunal in a recent ruling1 held that to compute the threshold limit for the duration test to determine the Permanent Establishment

• If a deduction is allowable towards provision for doubtful debt under section 361viia to banks and other prescribed financial institutions, the same should also be allowed to NBFCs..

5Explanation to clause iv of section 115J of the Act provides that the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation which would be required to be set off against the profit of the

AAR Ruling As per sub-section 1 of section 6 of the Act, an individual is considered to be a resident of India if he / she is physically present in India for 182 days or more during

The facts which need to be reported to the FIPB are as follows: - Nature of downstream company - Date of incorporation - Name and contact details of downstream company - Background