COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT-II, AHMEDABAD vs. R. M. AMIN

CIVIL APPEAL No. 51/1972Supreme Court[1977] 2 S.C.R. 22026 November 1976Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: HANS RAJ KHANNA, JASWANT SINGH B6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee acquired shares in a private limited company incorporated in Uganda before January 1, 1954, for Rs. 1,28,000. The company went into voluntary liquidation in 1961. The liquidators sold the company's assets, and the assessee received Rs. 3,12,326. The Income Tax Officer treated the difference of Rs. 1,84,326 as capital gains, arguing that the Uganda company was not a company under Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thus disentitling the assessee to benefits under Section 46(2). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held there was an extinguishment of rights in the capital asset. The Tribunal disagreed, finding no transfer. The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that money received on distribution of net assets is in satisfaction of existing rights, not consideration for extinguishment of rights.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the Uganda company is not a company within the meaning of Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, it ruled that there was no "transfer" as contemplated by the Act to attract capital gains tax. The Court followed its decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd., stating that the act of liquidation and distribution of assets does not create new rights but merely recognizes existing legal rights. Therefore, receiving money on liquidation is in satisfaction of the shareholder's right, not consideration for extinguishment of that right. The Court also noted that Section 46(2) specifically provides for capital gains tax on the distribution of assets by a company, and since the Uganda company is not a company as defined in Section 2(17), Section 46(2) does not apply. Consequently, the distribution does not attract capital gains tax. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the distribution of assets by a liquidator of a foreign company in voluntary liquidation to a shareholder is a "transfer" of a capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 read with Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, attracting capital gains tax? Assessee's Arguments: - The distribution of assets on liquidation does not constitute a "transfer" as defined in Section 2(47), specifically "extinguishment of any rights therein," because it merely recognizes existing rights, not creates new ones or extinguishes old ones in exchange for consideration. The assessee relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Madurai Mills Co. Ltd. - Even if it were a transfer, capital gains should be computed by deducting the fair market value of the asset as on January 1, 1954. - The levy of capital gains tax should be less, considering Section 114 of the Act. Revenue's Arguments: - The distribution of assets by the liquidator amounts to an "extinguishment of any rights" in the capital asset (shares), thus falling under the definition of "transfer" in Section 2(47). - The Uganda company not being a "company" under Section 2(17) means Section 46(2) does not apply, making the entire distribution taxable as capital gains under Section 45.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(17),Section 2(47),Section 45,Section 46(2),Section 48,Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A B c D E F G H 220 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT-II, AHMEDABAD v. R. M. AMIN November 26, 1976 (H. R. KHANNA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Income Tax Act 1961-Sec. 2(17), 2(47), 45, 46(2)-Capital fains-- Distribution of assets by a liquidator of company in voluntary liquidatiofl-lf liable to capital gains tax-If foreign company whiclt is not a company within the meaning of the Income Tax Act-Company-Meaning of-Transfer.

The respondent assessee acquired before 1-1-1954 certain shares in a private limited company incorporated in Uganda for Sh. 192002=Rs. l ,28,000 /-.

The said company went into voluntary liquidation in the year 1961. The liquidators sold the assets of the company and the assessee received an amount equivalent to Rs. 3,12,326/-.

The Income Tax Offi:er treated the difference bttween the amount received on liquidation and the amount paid by the assessee for the· acquisition of shares as capital gains liable to tax within s. 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer held that since the Uganda company was not a. company within the meaning of s. 2(17) of the Act, the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of s. 46(2) and, there

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(47)

All 831 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(47) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →