2025 (9) TMI 632 - AT - Income Tax

Revalued assets under amalgamation taxed on actual sale under section 45(2); capital reserve not immediate capital gains

DCIT, Central Circle-3 (4), Mumbai Versus Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited

ITAT, MUMBAI upholds the CIT(A) and dismisses the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the AO erred in ignoring that assets were revalued and recorded at ... Revaluation of cost of land - scheme of amalgamation - accordance with the scheme of amalgamation, the assessee had recorded all the assets of the transferor company at fair value and the excess of assets over liability was treated as capital reserve in the books of the assessee company - HELD THAT:- AO failed to consider that all the transasctions in the books of accounts were effected consequent to the merger scheme approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as discussed in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) reproduced supra in this order. Fair market value of land reflected as asset in the acquired company was taken when the said land was converted from actual asset to stock in trade which was liable for capital gain tax as per section 45(2) of the Act. As per provision of section 45(2), the capital gain tax to be paid on such fair market value when the actual sale is made. Therefore, considering the aforesaid provision of law the issue of taxability of such land acquired as a result of scheme of amalgamation and then converted from capital asset to stock in trade would arise in the year in which the asset is sold. Therefore, no reason to interfere in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground of appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in adding the amount arising from revaluation of land (reflected as increase in cost of WIP) to the assessee's income where such revaluation arose pursuant to a court-approved scheme of amalgamation and was recorded at fair market value in the transferee's books. 2. Whether a court-approved scheme of amalgamation and an independent valuation incorporated therein can be re-examined by the Revenue in a later assessment year to recharacterise the cost basis (i.e., treat share acquisition cost as cost of land) for computing inventory/WIP value. 3. Whether past acceptance by the Revenue of the same valuation/figures in earlier assessment years precludes the Revenue from taking a contrary view in a subsequent year (role of consistency/res judicata-type principles in income-tax assessments). 4. The tax consequence timing: Whether taxation under section 45(2) (FMV on conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade) is triggered at the time of conversion or only on subsequent sale/transfer of the asset. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of addition of revaluation amount to income where revaluation stems from court-approved amalgamation and independent valuation Legal framework: Court-approved schemes of amalgamation are implemented under company law and such schemes often provide for recording transferor's assets/liabilities at fair value; income-tax consequences depend on recognition rules and on specific tax provisions (e.g., sec. 45(2) for capital asset conversion to stock-in-trade). Precedent treatment: Tribunal/High Court decisions (as relied upon below) establish that a scheme of amalgamation approved by a competent Court binds statutory authorities and that valuations incorporated by such scheme, supported by independent valuer reports, are accorded weight. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that the increase in WIP value resulted directly from entries made pursuant to the High Court-approved amalgamation scheme, which recorded assets at fair market value and created a capital reserve representing the excess. The valuation was supported by an independent valuer and was considered in earlier assessment years. The Assessing Officer's addition sought to treat only the share purchase price paid as the cost of the underlying land, disregarding the court-sanctioned FMV entries; the Court found no cogent reasons given by the AO to reject the independent valuation or the court order. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A revaluation reflected in books pursuant to a court-approved amalgamation and supported by independent valuation cannot be lightly disregarded by the Revenue; addition on that account requires cogent reasons. Obiter - Observations on the general sanctity of court orders and independent valuations beyond present facts are persuasive but tied to circumstance. Conclusion: The addition of the revaluation impact to income was not sustainable where the revaluation arose from a court-approved scheme and was supported by independent valuation without any material contrary evidence offered by the AO. Issue 2 - Whether Revenue may re-characterise cost basis by equating share acquisition cost with cost of land despite amalgamation entries Legal framework: The Revenue may examine transactions for taxability but must respect binding court orders; accounting entries under a sanctioned scheme have legal effect and, absent material vitiating factors, are binding on authorities. Precedent treatment: Authorities relied upon indicate that once a scheme is sanctioned by the High Court, it is binding on members, creditors and statutory authorities; subsequent tax scrutiny cannot ordinarily upset the scheme's accounting/valuation unless valid grounds exist. Interpretation and reasoning: The AO's approach equated share purchase consideration with cost of land, effectively ignoring the amalgamation scheme's mandated fair value recording. The Tribunal/AT held that without cogent reasons to disturb the court-sanctioned valuation or independent valuer's report, it is improper to reassign the cost basis in a later assessment year. The Court further noted that the same basis was considered and allowed in prior assessments, reinforcing that retrospective recharacterisation lacked justification. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Revenue cannot substitute the scheme-driven fair value with share acquisition cost for tax computation in absence of compelling evidence; doing so is not proper assessment practice. Obiter - Comments on revenue's motives (e.g., 'artificial increase to undermine profit') are not adopted absent supporting material. Conclusion: The AO's re-characterisation was incorrect; the cost basis as recorded under the sanctioned scheme must be respected absent material reason to the contrary. Issue 3 - Application of consistency/res judicata-type considerations across assessment years Legal framework: Tax law treats each assessment year as a separate unit, but established factual positions consistently accepted by the Revenue in earlier years may be protected by principles of consistency; prior acceptance without challenge may prevent reversal in later years unless material change justifies reopening. Precedent treatment: The Court applied the principle in Radhasoami Satsang (as relied upon by the Tribunal below) that, although res judicata strictly does not apply to tax proceedings, a fundamental factual position consistently accepted should not be reversed in subsequent years without material change. Interpretation and reasoning: The valuation at FMV had been put before Assessing Officers and accepted in AY 2012-13 and in subsequent years, including examination of opening WIP figures for AY 2018-19. Given this consistent acceptance, and absence of any material change or fresh evidence, the Revenue was not justified in taking a contrary stand for AY 2020-21. The Court relied on the established approach that consistency of treatment across years is significant. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Consistent acceptance of a factual/valuation position by the Revenue in earlier assessments bars arbitrary reversal in a later year absent material change. Obiter - The precise boundaries of 'material change' are fact-sensitive and not exhaustively delineated here. Conclusion: The rule of consistency applied to preclude the AO from altering the valuation basis in the present assessment year. Issue 4 - Timing of taxability under section 45(2) on conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade Legal framework: Section 45(2) treats conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade as a transfer for capital gains purposes by deeming the FMV as the full value of consideration; the tax consequence is governed by that provision's timing rules. Precedent treatment: The decision recognises established statutory position that the deemed transfer rule operates to fix FMV for capital gains when conversion occurs, but actual tax liability arises on the sale/transfer or as specified by law. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the FMV was recorded at conversion and that, under section 45(2), capital gains consequences arise in relation to that FMV when the asset is sold. The assessee had affirmatively represented willingness to pay capital gains tax on the FMV upon sale, indicating no tax arbitrage. The Tribunal concluded that taxability under sec.45(2) would arise in the year of disposal as per statutory scheme, and thus the AO's attempt to tax the revaluation impact in the present assessment year was misplaced. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Conversion recorded at FMV pursuant to an approved scheme engages section 45(2) consequences, but the timing of chargeable capital gains is linked to the year of transfer/sale as per statutory provisions. Obiter - Observations about taxpayer's undertakings to pay tax on eventual sale are factual assurances relevant here but not general precedent. Conclusion: The revaluation amount did not constitute immediately taxable income in the assessment year under review; the capital gains consequences tied to FMV would be realized at the time of actual sale/transfer per section 45(2). Overall Conclusion The addition made by the AO on account of revaluation of land (impacting WIP) was unsustainable. The Court affirmed that a court-approved amalgamation scheme and an independent valuation incorporated therein are binding on revenue authorities absent cogent reason, that consistency of prior acceptance by Revenue precluded reversal, and that capital gains consequences under section 45(2) pertain to disposal timing. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.