Shares allotted at par value while others paid premium cannot be taxed under section 28(iv) without specific charging provisions

ITAT Hyderabad held that allotment of shares at par value to assessee while third parties received shares at premium of Rs. 350 per share cannot be taxed under section 28(iv). The tribunal ruled that absent specific charging provisions under section 56(2)(x) at the relevant time, receipt of property for consideration less than fair market value was not taxable. Share acquisition transactions fall in capital field, not revenue field, and alleged benefits not arising from business/profession cannot be taxed under section 28(iv). Decision favored assessee against revenue department.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the allotment of shares at face value to the assessee, while shares were allotted at a premium to others, constitutes a taxable benefit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
2. The validity of the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Taxability of Share Allotment under Section 28(iv):

The primary issue was whether the allotment of shares at face value to the assessee, while the same shares were allotted at a premium to others, constituted a taxable benefit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the difference in the share price constituted a non-monetary benefit arising from the business nexus, hence taxable under Section 28(iv). The assessee contended that the shares were allotted as part of an investment, not a business transaction, and thus, the benefit did not arise from any business or profession carried on by him.

The Tribunal noted that for Section 28(iv) to apply, the benefit must arise from the business or exercise of a profession and must be a revenue receipt, not a capital receipt. The Tribunal relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., which clarified that for Section 28(iv) to apply, the benefit must be in a form other than money and should arise from business or profession. Since the shares were acquired as an investment, the transaction was in the capital field, not revenue. Moreover, the Tribunal observed that the assessee did not carry on any business during the relevant assessment year, as his income comprised salary, house property, capital gains, and other sources. Therefore, the alleged benefit did not arise from business activities, and Section 28(iv) was not applicable.

2. Validity of Reopening of Assessment:

The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal did not delve deeply into this issue, as the primary focus was on the applicability of Section 28(iv). However, the Tribunal's decision to uphold the CIT(A)'s order, which favored the assessee on the merits, implicitly suggests that the reopening was not justified, given the lack of taxable income under Section 28(iv).

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that the allotment of shares at face value did not constitute a taxable benefit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between capital and revenue receipts and concluded that the benefit, if any, was in the capital field and not taxable as business income. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that only real income arising from business activities is subject to taxation under Section 28(iv).

---