Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Buy-back of shares by wholly-owned subsidiary taxable as capital gains

In Re RST (AAR)

S. 47(iv) relief not available if holding co and nominees hold 100% of subsidiary

In the case of RST,  it was held that buy-back of shares by a wholly-owned subsidiary (WOS) of a foreign company would be chargeable to tax as capital gains. This is in view of the specific provisions contained in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The applicant’s plea seeking exemption from charge to tax was rejected in view of the specific provisions contained in the Act treating a buy-back to be chargeable to tax as capital gains.


The ruling is a first of its kind on buy-back of shares by a WOS and may be of relevance for all WOSs contemplating buy-back of shares.

The applicant, a German company, held 99.99% of the shareholding of an Indian company. The rest of the shares were held by other companies as nominees of the applicant. The Indian company proposed a buy back of shares u/s 77A of the Companies Act which would have resulted in transfer of shares of the Indian company from the applicant to the Indian company at a price to be determined. The applicant claimed that as it and its nominees held 100% of the shares of the Indian company, the exemption conferred by s. 47(iv) on transfers between holding company and 100% subsidiary applied and s. 46A would not apply. HELD by the AAR:

(i) S. 47(iv) exempts a transfer of a capital asset by a company to its subsidiary if “the parent company or its nominees hold the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company”. The word used is “or” and not “and”. The assessee held only 99.99% of the shareholding. The shares held by the nominees cannot be considered as held by the assessee. If, under Indian law (s. 49 (3) of the Companies Act), a company cannot by itself hold 100% of the shares in a subsidiary, it would only mean that Parliament did not intend to confer the benefit of s. 47(iv) on such a parent company. Though this approach confines the relief to a particular species of parent companies, it does not mean that the provision is unworkable. If the nominees are treated as holding the shares benami for the parent company, it would offend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 and also violate s. 49(3) of the Companies Act. The nominees can also not be regarded as a trustee in view of s. 153 of the Companies Act. The result is that the applicant does not hold 100% of the share capital of the subsidiary and so s. 47(iv) is not attracted;

(ii) S. 46A, which provides that in the case of a buyback, the difference between the consideration and the cost of acquisition shall be deemed to be capital gains is a special provision and prevails s. 45. S. 47 overrides s. 45 but not s. 46A. There is no reason to enquire whether s. 46A is a charging section or not. The result is that even if the exemption in s. 47(iv) is held applicable, it does not override s. 46A and the applicant is subject to capital gains.



Exemption to Cashflow Statement / IFCR for Small Companies

MCA amended notification dated 5 June 2015, granting certain exemption to certain categories of companies. Key additional exemptions for: ...