Capital gains on amalgamated shares: 1964 fair market value substitution allowed, but separate bonus share deduction rejected.

In capital gains computation on shares received in amalgamation, the Tribunal held that the revenue's additional ground was admissible because it arose from the same controversy and required no fresh facts. Reading sections 47(vii), 49(2) and 55(2)(i) together, it held that the assessee could substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 for the deemed cost of the amalgamated shares. Separate deduction for bonus shares in the amalgamating companies was disallowed, as that cost was embedded in the overall shareholding. For valuation as on 1-1-1964, the 6% capitalisation rate applied, and averaging the yield and break-up value methods was impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue's additional ground of appeal could be entertained; (ii) whether the assessee could, for shares received on amalgamation, substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 under section 55(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether the cost of acquisition of bonus shares in the amalgamating companies had to be allowed separately; (iv) whether 6% or 9% was the proper rate of capitalisation for valuing the A & F Harvey Ltd. shares as on 1-1-1964; and (v) whether the value arrived at by the yield method and the break-up value method could be averaged for such valuation.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue's additional ground of appeal could be entertained.

Analysis: The additional ground was held to raise an aspect of the same controversy already before the Tribunal, namely the correct computation of capital gains on the sale of the shares. As all relevant facts were already on record and no fresh investigation was needed, the Tribunal treated the plea as admissible within its appellate jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The additional ground was entertained in favour of the revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could, for shares received on amalgamation, substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964 under section 55(2)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Sections 47(vii), 49(2) and 55(2)(i) were read together. The shares in the amalgamated company were deemed to have the cost of acquisition of the shares in the amalgamating companies, and the statutory option under section 55(2)(i) was held to attach to that deemed cost. The legal fiction was required to be carried to its logical end, and there was no warrant for truncating it merely because the exchange shares were allotted after 1-1-1964.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to substitute the fair market value as on 1-1-1964; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether the cost of acquisition of bonus shares in the amalgamating companies had to be allowed separately.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed the binding High Court view that where the entire block of shares is transferred en bloc, the separate averaging of bonus shares does not survive as an independent deduction. The cost of bonus shares was treated as embedded in the overall shareholding and no separate deduction was permissible on the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The separate deduction for bonus shares was disallowed; this issue was decided in favour of the revenue.

Issue (iv): Whether 6% or 9% was the proper rate of capitalisation for valuing the A & F Harvey Ltd. shares as on 1-1-1964.

Analysis: The valuation date was 1-1-1964, when the relevant Board circular in force prescribed a 6% rate. The later circular relied on by the revenue could not govern the valuation as on the earlier date.

Conclusion: The 6% rate was upheld; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Issue (v): Whether the value arrived at by the yield method and the break-up value method could be averaged for such valuation.

Analysis: The Supreme Court had rejected the combination of the two methods as an unscientific compromise lacking judicial authority. The Tribunal therefore held that averaging of yield and break-up values was impermissible.

Conclusion: Averaging of the two methods was not permitted; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the core questions concerning statutory substitution of 1-1-1964 value and valuation methodology, but the revenue succeeded on the separate deduction claimed for bonus shares, resulting in a partial allowance of the department's appeal and allowance of the assessee's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital gains on shares received in amalgamation, section 49(2) deems the cost of the amalgamated shares to be the cost of the amalgamating shares, and section 55(2)(i) permits the assessee to substitute the fair market value as on the statutory date where that deemed cost relates to shares held before that date; valuation must also follow the legally approved method applicable to the relevant valuation date.

---