Evaluation of part 47 (III) of the income-tax act from the point of view of the latest judgment of principal commissioner of revenue tax v redington (India) restricted

Understanding of Mutation of Property in India

Within the above case, the Madras Excessive Court docket was confronted with a state of affairs whereby Redington, a Listed Indian Firm, transferred its complete shareholding in a overseas subsidiary to a different step down overseas subsidiary with out consideration and acknowledged that this identical switch of shares was not subjected to capital features tax underneath the exemption provisions of Part 47(iii) of the Earnings-tax Act, 1961. The division, however, acknowledged that the Act consists of Part 47(iv), a particular clause involved with an organization’s switch of shares to its subsidiary, and doesn’t exclude a switch of shares to a overseas subsidiary and that the particular provision would take priority over the final provision.

Moreover, for the reason that commerce was worldwide, the phrases of Switch Pricing have been utilized. Though holding {that a} company may give a professional present to a different firm underneath Sections 5 and 122 of the Switch of Property Act, the courtroom famous that the sale within the current case wasn’t actually voluntary and that the doc was inadequate and there was no indication within the data, Board resolutions, or different paperwork exhibiting that there was any intention of constructing a present.

A decided intention to divest the holding to the opposite enterprise capital agency additionally prompted the transfer. Following McDowell’s ruling, the Court docket granted the division’s enchantment, upholding the inclusion of greater than Rs 600 crores. The above choice goes into nice element on the parts of a authorized donation, the necessity for satisfactory paperwork earlier than making the present, and any tax planning.


The important thing level of competition, on this case, is the firm’s proper to an exception underneath part 47(iii) for a present of shares to its step-down subsidiary for the fiscal yr 2009-10. Redington Gulf FZE (RGF), the assessee’s owned and operated affiliate was primarily centered on actions within the Center East and Africa. The assessee later shaped a wholly-owned subsidiary in Mauritius in July 2008 named RIML. In change, RIML shaped a wholly-owned subsidiary (RIHL Cayman) within the Cayman Islands. The assessee’s complete holding was handed. On the thirteenth of November, 2008, RGF Gulf made a present to RIHL Cayman.

RGF Gulf had develop into a step-down subsidiary of RIML and the assessee because of this present of shares. RGF Gulf had develop into a step-down division of RIML and the assessee group because of this present of shares. Every week later, a non-public fairness agency invested USD 65 million within the step-down affiliate RIHL Cayman, buying a 27.17 % stake. The Switch Pricing Officer (TPO) added to the online income within the evaluation course of, claiming that such contributions had a valuation on the date of present that was not excluded underneath the Earnings Tax Act and that since these securities got to a different subsidiary, the change needed to be handled as a sale.

In consequence, the TPO estimated the assessee’s long-term capital features to be Rs 610.16 Cr by ascribing the worth to the gifted shares. In consequence, the TPO estimated long-term capital returns within the assessee’s palms to be Rs 610.16 Cr, primarily based on the valuation of the gifted shares. The ITAT determined to exclude this addition. The case was taken to the Excessive Court docket by the Earnings Tax Authorities.


The shares have been solely exchanged as a part of the restructuring of the assessee’s RGF investments, they usually weren’t given as a present. The time period “present” was not included within the share switch varieties or the data of the Board Assembly, implying that the entire deal is a restructuring. The restructuring will come underneath Part 47(iv) or Part 47(v) exemptions, however provided that the clauses’ necessities are met, and since the situations usually are not met all through this example, this exception is not actually relevant.

Part 92B (switch pricing provisions), which had been modified by a retrospective definition increasing the context of “worldwide transaction” to incorporate company restructuring or reorganization undertaken by a company with its affiliate entity, cowl these transactions (regulation enacted by the Finance Act 2012 with retrospective impact from 1-04-2002). As well as, the sale doesn’t meet the that means of a present underneath part 122 of the Switch of Property Act (TP Act). Based on the corporate’s CFO, this cross-border commerce offered financial benefits to the corporate, and subsequently this isn’t a present. The retros haven’t been challenged by the assessee. The assessee hasn’t actually contested the regulation’s retroactive suitability, so the time period added in 2012 is squarely relevant. Because the deal was tax evasive, it can’t be accepted.


The transactions have been performed in accordance with native legal guidelines of the nations by which these corporations have been shaped, and a company was shaped within the Cayman Islands as a result of the brand new proprietor solely wished to spend money on the Center East and South Africa actions. Additionally, the ensuing PE funding is fraught with a number of necessities which have to be met by the PE investor on the time of exit, akin to re-acquiring at a price that ensures him a sure proportion of the return on the funding. The ITAT additionally accepted that the transaction is a present and that there have been no capital features subsequently there is no such thing as a consideration.

A number of courtroom rulings exist, together with the Supreme Court docket’s judgment in Siemens Communications Community Non-public Restricted, which dominated {that a} loss refunded by the unique German firm to the Indian subsidiary was not taxable within the possession of the Indian firm, demonstrating that any financial benefit gained can’t be used towards the assessee. The division has re-characterized the acquisition, which is prohibited underneath the statute because of the enactment of GAAR rules as a result of the division has re-characterized a present transaction as a sale transaction. The transaction can’t be labeled as a hoax, and it can’t be taxable as a result of no revenue has been accrued within the pockets of the assessee.


A residing particular person features a company physique underneath Part 5 of the TP Act, so an organization can ship a donation underneath Part 5 of the TP Act. Beneath the TP Act, a donation will need to have the next traits: (a) no consideration (b) the donor (c) the donee (d) to be voluntary (e) the subject material (f) switch (g) acceptance. It’s simple that there have been transactions that don’t rely as presents underneath Part 122 of the TP Act however do classify as presents for the needs of levying tax underneath the Reward Tax Act. In deciding if the Reward is voluntary, the Indian Contract Act pertaining to free consent will probably be used.

As a result of the switch of shares is for restructuring, the donor’s unconditional approval is absent on this scenario, as proven by the board decision, as a result of the precise act of confirming the switch of shares and execution of the deed of share switch could correspond with the psychological act—that’s, the need to render the present. The assessee’s sole objective was to restructure in an effort to enable a third-party investor to spend money on the Cayman Islands Enterprise. In consequence, voluntariness on this share conversion is dominated out. The way in which by which the sale was carried out, in addition to the truth that the funding ended up in a tax haven, would plainly exhibit that this was a sham deal. In consequence, the transaction won’t rely as a authorized Reward underneath Part 122 of the TP Act. In consequence, the transaction will probably be subjected to Tax underneath the heading “capital features” underneath Part 45 of the Act. In response to the assessee’s reference of the Supreme Court docket judgments in Sunil Siddharthabhai & B. C Srinivasa Setty, the courtroom held that “these selections have been rendered on an idealistic factual foundation with none claims towards the assessee who had made questionable transactions to keep away from the tax web from the Indian continents.”

The rationale that no dividend has been introduced by Cayman Islands Firm so far can’t be used to determine if the assessee’s present speculation is professional and everlasting. The precise dividends introduced by the Gulf firm that accrued to the Cayman Islands firm and the dividends reported by the Cayman Island firm to the Mauritius firm within the FY 2010-11 & 2011-12 demonstrated that income have been shifted exterior the nation because of the above restructuring, and even when the Gulf entity is disposed of within the prospect, the profit will accrue to the Cayman Island Firm and never with the Mauritius Firm. Lots of the assessee’s rulings quoted in favor of the claims have been additionally dismissed by the HC.

The choice resolved quite a few authorized points, together with whether or not Redington’s trademark registration payment paid to one among its firms for a licensed label it already possessed must be deducted from its tax invoice. The Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had heard Redington’s argument towards the Earnings Tax Division’s judgment that advantages gained on the switch of shares in its overseas associates have been taxable. The ITAT determined within the firm’s favor. The excessive courtroom reversed the ITAT ruling and directed Redington to pay over 1.4 billion {dollars} in taxes (US$19.13 million). The courtroom dominated that the switch of shares to associates wouldn’t be a present, because the company stated, and subsequently didn’t qualify for tax exemption.

The respondent obtained no consideration when sure branches have been established in Mauritius and the Cayman Islands simply earlier than the transaction. This may be a method for the mother or father group to cease paying taxes in India, and the businesses have been used as gateways. About the truth that the respondent was the proprietor of the trademark Redington, the mother or father firm in India demanded a tax exemption on the trademark license cost it paid to its affiliate in Singapore. The switch pricing officer challenged this topic (TPO). Redington disputed their proper to take action, claiming the tax calculation was not underneath their purview.

A mother or father enterprise can’t fairly pay a premium to a subsidiary firm for utilizing a reputation utilized by the mother or father firm, based on the TPO. The company has not given any documentation that the trademark was held by the Singapore subsidiary or that it was registered in Singapore. The TPO dominated that the trademark and license charges shouldn’t be deducted from taxes. The ITAT agreed with Redington’s submission and permitted the company to demand a tax benefit with out the transaction being scrutinized.

The commissioner testified in entrance of the excessive courtroom that the mother or father agency had been utilizing the Redington title since 1993, had filed for trademark safety in 2000, and had obtained the certificates of registration in 2009. The Singapore entity was based in 2005, a number of years after the Indian entity began utilizing the trademark. In 2006, the mother or father firm and the affiliate reached an settlement for the title for use in Singapore. The commissioner stated that the ITAT made a mistake as a result of the transaction was absurd. The TPO had no proper to problem this, based on Redington, because it was a enterprise transaction.

The company stated that the Singapore agency owned the trademark and that it existed from an Indian department till 1987. That yr, the Indian firm was renamed Redington and bought the Singapore-based Redington. The trademark registration doc additionally acknowledged that the brand has been in use since 1986. The respondents didn’t have any proof in favor of their claims. The courtroom dismissed the declare that the Singapore entity was the authorized proprietor of the mark on account of a scarcity of supporting documentation. It was decided that the Indian company was the mother or father firm and that the label has been in use since 1993.

A mother or father firm paying a trademark licensing payment to its subsidiary firm was absurd, notably because the mark was licensed underneath the mother or father firm’s title and a license settlement for the respondent to make use of the mark had solely been signed in 2006. The TPO was appropriate in questioning the change as insane, and the ITAT’s conclusions have been weird. The usage of an organization’s brand is commonly licensed.

Nevertheless, for truthful industrial functions and good consideration, that is usually completed by written consent. On this scenario, the tax avoidance demonstrated by illogical spending would have gone unnoticed if a warning TPO had not challenged the act of a mother or father company paying its subsidiary a license payment for the appropriate to make use of the brand that it possessed. The fact of mental property rights and related offers should be carefully scrutinized always.

Supply hyperlink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *