Facts
of the Case
The
assessee, Emami Realty Limited, is a listed company engaged in real estate
development. Pursuant to a scheme of arrangement approved by the NCLT, the real
estate undertaking of Oriental Sales Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. was demerged
into the assessee with the appointed date of 01.04.2019. The NCLT order
approving the scheme was passed on 10.08.2021 and shares were issued to the
shareholders of the demerged entity on 15.09.2021. For Assessment Year 2021-22,
the assessee filed its return declaring total income of ₹3,11,97,970. During
scrutiny, the Assessing Officer held that the scheme of demerger did not
satisfy the conditions of Section 2(19AA), denied exemption under Section
47(vib), and made an addition of ₹374.53 crores under Section 56(2)(x) on the
alleged ground that assets were received for inadequate consideration. The
CIT(A) deleted the addition, against which the Revenue filed appeal and the
assessee filed cross-objection.
Issues
Involved
Whether
the scheme of demerger complied with the conditions of Section 2(19AA), whether
exemption under Section 47(vib) was rightly available, whether Rule 11UA could
be invoked to test compliance with Section 2(19AA)(iv), whether Section
56(2)(x) was applicable to a court-approved demerger, and whether any taxable
event arose in Assessment Year 2021-22.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The
Revenue contended that liabilities relatable to the real estate undertaking
were not correctly transferred, violating Section 2(19AA)(ii), and that share
valuation was not carried out as per Rule 11UA, violating Section 2(19AA)(iv).
It was argued that the assessee received assets far in excess of the value of
shares issued and therefore the differential amount was taxable under Section
56(2)(x). The Revenue further contended that directions issued by the AO
relating to protective addition, application of Section 50C in the hands of the
demerged entity, and applicability of Section 194-IC were justified in the
interest of revenue.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The
assessee submitted that all assets and liabilities relating to the real estate
undertaking were transferred as per the NCLT-approved scheme and that the
alleged discrepancy in liabilities arose from a clerical error in earlier
segmental reporting, which was subsequently corrected and certified by the
statutory auditor. It was argued that Section 2(19AA)(iv) requires only proportionate
share allotment and does not mandate valuation as per Rule 11UA, which applies
only for Section 56. The assessee further contended that transactions covered
by Section 47(vib) are expressly excluded from the ambit of Section 56(2)(x)
and that no taxable event occurred in AY 2021-22 since the demerger became
effective from AY 2020-21 and shares were issued only in AY 2022-23.
Court
Order / Findings
The
ITAT Kolkata held that the liabilities of ₹112.38 crores transferred pursuant
to the demerger indeed pertained to the real estate undertaking and that the
Revenue failed to establish any violation of Section 2(19AA)(ii). The Tribunal
further held that Rule 11UA could not be imported into Section 2(19AA)(iv), as
the provision only requires proportionate allotment of shares and Rule 11UA is
notified solely for the purposes of Section 56. It was observed that
transactions qualifying under Section 47(vib) are expressly excluded from the
scope of Section 56(2)(x). The Tribunal also held that no taxable event
occurred in Assessment Year 2021-22 since the scheme became effective from
01.04.2019 and shares and assets were received only in Assessment Year 2022-23.
Directions relating to protective addition, Section 50C and Section 194-IC were
also found to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) deleting
the addition was upheld.
Important
Clarification
The
Tribunal clarified that while sanction of a scheme by the NCLT does not
preclude examination of tax implications by the Income-tax Department, tax
authorities cannot disregard statutory exemptions available to tax-neutral
demergers compliant with Section 2(19AA). Further, income can be taxed only in
the year in which the taxable event actually occurs and cannot be brought to
tax in an incorrect assessment year.
Final
Outcome
The
appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the
assessee was rendered infructuous. The deletion of the addition of ₹374.53
crores made under Section 56(2)(x) for Assessment Year 2021-22 was upheld, and
all consequential directions issued by the Assessing Officer were set aside.
Source Link - https://itat.gov.in/public/files/upload/1768223223-2p5n3J-1-TO.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information
and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the
information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment