Receipt Of Shares Of Amalgamated Company In Lieu Of Stock-in-Trade Taxable

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

• The assessees¹ are investment companies of the Jindal Group holding shares in operating companies, Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited ('JFAL') and Jindal Strips Limited ('JSL').
• Under a court-approved scheme, JFAL amalgamated with JSL pursuant to which shareholders of JFAL ('Amalgamating Company') received 45 shares of JSL ('Amalgamated Company') for every 100 shares of JFAL held.
• The assessees while filing their tax returns claimed such receipt of shares of amalgamated company as exempt under Section 47(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the 'Act') treating the same to be capital assets.
• During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ('AO') treated the investments of assessees in amalgamating company ('JFAL') as stock-in-trade, denied the exemption under Section 47(vii) and taxed the difference between the value of the JSL shares (as on the appointed date) and the book value of the JFAL shares as business income chargeable to tax under Section 28 of the Act. The said order was upheld by the CIT Appeals.
• Aggrieved, the assessees preferred an appeal before the ITAT, which ruled in their favour. The Revenue challenged the ITAT's decision before the High Court, which allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Aggrieved by the High Court's order, the assessees filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

ITAT RULING

• The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessees, holding that the nature of the shareholding was immaterial, as income arises only upon sale or transfer for a consideration. Since no sale had occurred, the issue was confined to whether the allotment of JSL shares in exchange for JFAL shares under the amalgamation constituted a transfer. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF)² , the Tribunal concluded that no transfer had taken place and, consequently, no taxable profit arose.

HIGH COURT RULING

• On appeal, the High Court reversed the Tribunal's view and decided in favour of the Revenue. It held that the Tribunal had wrongly relied on Supreme Court's decision in Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) without considering the later and binding Supreme Court ruling in Grace Collis³. The High Court observed that where shares in the amalgamating company are held as capital assets, the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company constitutes a 'transfer' under section 2(47), and will be exempt under section 47(vii). However, where such shares are held as stock-in-trade, their substitution by shares of the amalgamated company amounts to realisation of trading assets, with any resulting surplus taxable as business income under section 28. Relying on Orient Trading Co. Ltd.⁴, the matter was accordingly remanded back to the Tribunal to determine the true nature of the assessees' shareholding.

REVENUE'S CONTENTIONS:

• The Revenue submitted that where shares are held as stock-in-trade, any profit arising from the receipt of shares of the amalgamated company in lieu of those of the amalgamating company is taxable as business income under Section 28, in the absence of any specific exemption.
• The Tribunal erred in holding that profit arise only upon sale or transfer for a consideration, as Section 28 is concerned with profits and gains of business and is agnostic to the mode of realisation; income may accrue in cash or in kind. The concept of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) is irrelevant for determining business income under Section 28.
• Upon amalgamation, the shares of the amalgamating company cease to exist and their value stands realised either in cash or by allotment of shares of the amalgamated company, creating a corresponding statutory obligation and satisfying the test of real income.
• The levy is not on hypothetical income, as income accrues when the right to receive becomes vested and enforceable. In any event, a scheme of amalgamation bears the attributes of a sale, and the taxable event stands satisfied.

TAXPAYER'S CONTENTIONS:

• The assessees submitted that the taxability of the receipt, based on whether the shares were held as stock-in-trade or capital assets, was neither raised nor framed and therefore could not have been examined by the High Court.
• Receipt of shares of the amalgamated company does not amount to a sale or exchange, as the amalgamating company dissolves on amalgamation and its shares cease to exist, leaving no subsisting property capable of transfer. The definition of 'transfer' under Section 2(47) is relevant only for capital gains and has no application to stock-in-trade.
• Business income arises only upon actual exploitation or realisation of stock-intrade, and mere substitution of shares pursuant to amalgamation does not give rise to taxable business income. Any appreciation in the value of shares received is purely notional and hypothetical; real income arises only upon actual sale.
• The scheme of the Act supports this position, as notional income is taxed only where specifically provided, and the original cost of stock-in-trade must be preserved until realisation. Accordingly, even where shares are held as stockin-trade, receipt of shares on amalgamation does not result in taxable business income.

SUPREME COURT'S OBSERVATIONS:

• The Supreme Court noted that amalgamation results in a statutory substitution of shareholding, whereby the amalgamating company ceases to exist and its shares are replaced by shares of the amalgamated company, but the tax consequences depend on the nature of the shares held by the assessee.
• The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 47(vii) exempts transfers only in respect of capital assets, and no corresponding exemption exists where shares are held as stock-in-trade. Section 28, being a wide charging provision, operates independently of the concept of "transfer" under Section 2(47).
• It was clarified that for business income under Section 28, the critical inquiry is not whether there is a sale, exchange, or transfer in the strict legal sense, but whether there is a real and commercially realisable profit arising in the course of business, even if realised in kind.
• The Supreme Court emphasised that mere statutory substitution of shares on amalgamation does not automatically give rise to taxable income. Taxability arises only where the substitution results in a commercial realisation, where:
  1. The old stock-in-trade ceases to exist.
  2. The new shares have a definite and ascertainable value.
  3. The assessee can commercially realise (sell/trade) the shares immediately upon allotment.
• If the above conditions are satisfied, the substitution bears the character of a commercial realisation and the profit may be taxed under Section 28.
• However, The Supreme Court also observed that If the new shares are subject to a lock-in period and cannot be sold immediately, the allotment cannot be treated as a commercial realization;
• Where the shares are unlisted or closely held and no open market exists to determine a fair disposal value, taxability would be deferred to sale of shares;
• In such cases, allotment is only a statutory substitution, not commercial realisation. Thus, Mere receipt of shares is not enough. The shares must be freely marketable, capable of being monetised immediately, capable of definite valuation.
• The Supreme Court also observed that insulating trading stock from taxation on amalgamation would open avenues for tax avoidance by converting trading profits into tax-neutral share substitutions.
• While upholding the legal principle, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to ITAT to determine whether, in fact, the shares were freely marketable and held as stock-in-trade.

AURTUS COMMENTS

• While noting that Section 47 provides exemption where shares are held as capital assets, the Supreme Court affirmed that Section 28 is wide in scope and encompasses all profits and gains arising in the course of business, including those realised in kind.
• At the same time, the Supreme Court has reiterated that even under Section 28, only real income can be taxed. Mere statutory substitution of one asset by another does not automatically result in business income. What is relevant is whether the transaction results in a real and presently realisable commercial advantage.
• This judgment could have a significant impact on those taxpayers who are frequently trading in the listed securities (held as stock-in-trade) which wll undergo corporate restructuring, given these securities are marketable and has immediate realisable commercial advantage.

Footnotes

1 M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING, M/S NALWA INVESTMENT LTD., M/S ABHINANDAN TRADEX LTD., M/S MANSAROVER TRADEX LTD vs CIT - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152, 153, 154 & 155 OF 2026

2 (1989) 177 ITR 198 

3 (2001) 248 ITR 323 (SC) 

4 (1997) 224 ITR 371 (SC)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.