Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Electroplast Engineers, Mumbai vs Assessee on 2 November, 20151 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "जी" यायपीठ मुब ं ई म। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "G", MUMBAI ी िड. क नाकर राव, लेखा सद य एवं ी अिमत शु ला, याियक सद य के सम । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 5363/Mum/2014 (Assessment year : 2010-11) Electroplast Engineers, Vs Asst. Commissioner of 142 Garuda House, Income Tax -24(3), Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai -400 097 C-1, 7th Floor, थयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AAAFE 7927 N Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai -400 051 अपीलाथ (Appellant यथ (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P Murlidhar Shri P C Jain Respondent by : Shri Neil Philip सन ु वाई क तार ख /Date of Hearing : 04-08-2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 02-11-2015 आदेश ORDER
अिमत शु ला, या. स.:
PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM:
The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 31.07.2014, passed by CIT(A)-34, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11. In various grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the treatment of payment made to retiring partners of Rs. 3,75,08,859/- as transfer of capital assets by way of distribution & brining the same to tax as short-term-capital- gains in the hands of assessee firm.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee firm is engaged in the manufacturing of tube light fittings and other lighting 2 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 accessories for over a period of 13 years. The assessee firm came into existence vide partnership deed dated 16.11.1996, then consisting of two partners namely, Shri Ramratan Sohanlal Saraf and Shri Niraj Ramratan Saraf having share ratio of 75% and 25% respectively. During the year under appeal, i.e., on 15.01.2010, the constitution of the firm underwent a change in terms of "Deed of Reconstituted Partnership Deed" of the same date (15.01.2010) by which, 3 partners were admitted, wherein the profit sharing ratio underwent a change in the following manner :-Ramratan Sohanlal Saraf 67.5% Niraj Ramratan Saraf 17.5% Pravin Kumar Agarwal 5% Alok Kumar Agarwal 5% Sudhir Kumar Agarwal 5%
Immediately thereafter, on 16.01.2010 a "Deed of Retirement-cum- Reconstitution of Partnership Deed" was made by which the earlier two partners, Ramratan Sohanlal Saraf and Shri Niraj Ramratan Saraf retired from the partnership firm and in the same deed, the continuing 3 partners have changed their sharing ratio in the following manner :-Pravin Kumar Agarwal 40% Alok Kumar Agarwal 30% Sudhir Kumar Agarwal 30%
3. There was no dissolution or discontinuity of the firm or business. At the time of the retirement of the partners, the firm created an intangible asset in the books in the form of "Goodwill" for an amount of Rs.3,75,08,859/- and was distributed among the retiring partners amounting to Rs.2,97,86,447/- and Rs. 77,27,412/- between Shri Ramratan Sohanlal Saraf and Shri Niraj Ramratan Saraf, respectively. The AO observed that such a payment to the retiring partners amounts to distribution of capital asset on the dissolution of the firm which is taxable under section 45(4). Further, the firm, without revaluing the assets has created "goodwill" and paid the amount to the retiring partners, this also 3 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 tantamount to revaluation of the asset of the assessee firm at the time of the retirement of the partners. In response to the show cause notice as to why such a distribution of capital asset should be charged to tax as capital gain u/s 45(4), assessee submitted that the provision section 45(4) is not applicable to the assessee firm, because there is only change in the constitution of the firm and it is not a case of dissolution of the firm. However, the AO rejected the assessee's contention and held that the payment made to the partners is on account of transfer of a capital asset and same is chargeable u/s 45(4). While holding so, he has referred and relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates, reported in 265 ITR 346, wherein their Lordships have interpreted the expression "otherwise" as provided in section 45(4), which is to be read with the word transfer of capital assets by way of distribution, which not only includes cases of dissolution but also the case of subsisting partners of the partnership firm transferring the assets in favour of the retiring partners. Thus, he held that amount of goodwill created by firm at Rs.3,75,08,859/- is nothing but capital gain arising on distribution of capital asset of the firm by way of dissolution of firm or otherwise.
4. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs A N Naik Associates (supra) is not relevant to the present case, because in that case by way of Memorandum of family settlement, it was agreed that the business of those firms as set out therein would be distributed in terms of the family settlement and it was set out that all those assets or liabilities belonging to or due from any of the firm would be treated as "transfer", which here in this case, there is no transfer of any asset to the retiring partners. It was further brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Full Bench decision in the case of CIT vs Dynamic Enterprises has distinguished the decision of Bombay 4 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 High Court in A.N. Naik Associates (supra) and disapproved its earlier decision in CIT vs Gurunath, Talkies, reported in  328 ITR 59. However ld. CIT(A), rejected the assessee's contention and held that payment of goodwill is nothing but payment on account of transfer of capital asset of the firm. He further held that creation of goodwill was a colourable device to camouflage the transaction. He also applied the principle of Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd [154 ITR 148] to confirm the addition made by the AO. The relevant observation and finding of the CIT(A) can be summarized in the following manner:-
firstly, the Ld. CIT(A), agreed with the contention of the assessee that neither there was any dissolution of the firm nor the firm was discontinued. The firm continued by its remaining partners with all its assets and there was no transfer of assets by way of distribution of capital asset, because no asset have gone out of the books of the firm whether tangible or intangible. However, he held that the rights and interest in the assets of the firm have been transferred to the new members on retirement of old partners and a new partners enjoyed the rights and interest in such a partnership, therefore, there is a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of the provisions of section 2(47) read with clause (b)
(v) and (vi);
Secondly, Sub-section (4) of section 45 is clearly applicable as it was brought in the statute to take care of transfer of capital asset from the partners to the firm and form firm to its partners in certain situations. Here, in this case, the action of the firm by creating goodwill and by making payment in lieu thereof to the partners is nothing but distribution of assets to its retiring partners which has been done in an indirect manner by retaining the assets in the firm. Thus, he confirmed the order of the AO after detailed reasoning as given from pages 6 to 13 of the appellate order; and 5 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 Lastly, he strongly referred and relied upon the decision of Bombay High court in the case of A N Naik & Associates (supra) and Karntatka High Court decision in the case of Gurunath Talkies (supra).
5. Before us the Ld. Counsel, after referring to the Deed of reconstituted partnership and deed of retirement, submitted that, it is an undisputed position that there is no dissolution of the firm and the firm is continuing with the same name, brand, and business. There is no transfer of asset within the meaning of section 45(4). Even the goodwill continues with the assessee firm and it was created only for making the payment to the retiring partners on their respective share capital and there is no cost of acquisition of rights. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the correct position of law and also a decision of Full Bench of Karnataka High Court, wherein the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) have been distinguished or not accepted. In support, he filed a copy of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dynamic Enterprises, judgment and order dated 16th February, 2013.
6. On the other hand, Ld. DR strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A).
7. We have heard the rival contention, perused the relevant finding given in the impugned orders and also material placed on record. Here in this case, the basic facts which are undisputed are that, firstly, the original partnership firm continues and there is only reconstitution of the partners in the present assessment year; secondly, there is no dissolution of the firm as the firm is continuing by the remaining partners with the same business, hence there is no dissolution of the firm; thirdly, there is no transfer of asset by way of distribution of capital asset, because no asset has gone out of the books of account of the assessee firm;6
Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 and lastly, all the assets, tangible or intangible still continues with the assessee firm. All these facts have been noted and accepted by the CIT(A) in para 7 of the impugned order. What the assessee firm has done, it has created a "goodwill" account and distributed the amount among the retiring partners. It is not the case of the revenue that "goodwill" of the firm has been transferred, rather they have disputed the manner in which the goodwill has been created solely for the purpose of making the payment to the retiring partners. What the retiring partners have taken is, only money towards the value of their shares. Now in such a situation, whether it can be held that the assessee firm is liable to pay capital gain without there being any distribution of capital assets on dissolution of a firm, within the scope and meaning of section 45(4). Sub-section (4) of section 45 reads as under :-
4. "The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body, of the previous year in which the said transfer takes place and, for the purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer".
From the plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that, the condition precedents for attracting the chargeability of capital gain under sub-section (4) are as under:-
(1) There should be a distribution of capital assets of a firm;
(2) Such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; and (3) On account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain derived by the firm.
(4) Such distribution should be on dissolution of the firm or otherwise".
Thus, the gain from transfer of a capital asset should be by way of a distribution of capital asset on a dissolution of a firm which shall 7 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 be chargeable to tax as an income of the firm, in other words, if there is no dissolution of the firm and resultant no distribution of capital asset, then there is no transfer of such asset by the firm in favour of a partner resulting into profits or gains to the firm, which can be said chargeable to tax as income in the hands of the firm. Here in this case, none of the conditions as given in sub-section (4) are applicable, because no capital asset of the firm has been extinguished or any transfer has been made in favour of the partner for acquiring any such interest on asset. Here in this case, the creation of a 'goodwill' is merely a mode of making the payment to the retiring partners without having any impact of the capital asset 'tangible' or 'intangible'. There is no actual transfer of any asset from the firm to the retiring partners by which the firm ceases to have any right in the property tangible or intangible. There is no absolute title of any property acquired by the partners after being extinguished from the firm. Thus, it cannot be held that there is any transfer of asset chargeable to tax under the head "capital gain" within the ambit and scope of section 45(4).
8. Coming to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Gurunath (supra) as relied upon by the CIT(A), it is seen that Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Dynamic Enterprises, reported in  359 ITR 83 (Kar)(FB), has distinguished the case of the Bombay High Court on facts and dissented from the decision of its own Court in case of Gurunath Talkies (supra). In this case, the question of law referred for consideration of Full Bench was as under:-
"When a retiring partner takes only the money towards the value of his share, whether the firm should be made liable to pay capital gains even when there is no distribution of capital asset/assets among the partners under Section 45(4) of the I.T. Act?
Or 8 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 Whether the retiring partner would be liable to pay for the capital gains?"
Relevant facts and case of the revenue were as under :-
"4. M/s Dynamic Enterprises-the respondent herein is a partnership firm which came into existence on 09.01.1985 with Sri Anurag Jain and Sri Nirmal Kumar Dugar as its partners. The firm was engaged in the business of buying landed properties, constructions of buildings thereon, construction of industrial sheds, commercial complexes etc. On 13.04.1987, the firm was reconstituted by which Sir Nirmal Kumar Dugar retired from the partnership and L.P. Jain (father of Anrag Jain) entered the partnership as he showed his willingness to contribute capital for purchase of land to construct housing complex. The firm purchased land bearing Sy.No. 13/1, Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobii, Bangalore South Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 13.5.1987 for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Another reconstitution took place on 1.7.1991 by which Sri L.P. Jain retired from the firm and Smt. Pushpa Jain and Smt. Shree Jain were inducted as partners. The firm was reconstituted and five partners belonging to Khemka Group were inducted into the firm by a deed dated 28.04.1993. Before the reconstitution, the assets of the firm were revalued as per the report of the registered valuer on 28.03.1994. The three old partners retired through deed of retirement dated 01.04.1994. The old partners received the enhanced value of property in financial year 1994-95.
5. As per the Assessing Officer there is transfer of property from old firm to the new firm on 01.04.1994. Hence, it is a transfer within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, notice under Section 148 was issued on 27.03.2002. In reply to the said notice, the assessee-firm contended that it has paid the amount to the retiring partners standing on credit side in respect of capital accounts. There is no transfer of asset and therefore, they are not liable to pay any capital gains tax.
6. The Assessing Officer held that the land was purchased when the firm was having two partners, namely, Shri Anurag Jain and Shri L.P. Jain. The firm had done no business all through its existence. The receipt of rents and commission for assessment year 1994-95 were found as bogus. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners were introduced and the old partners retired. This is a device adopted to transfer the immovable property. The incoming partners tried to evade capital gains tax as well as stamp duty and therefore, he held the capital gains tax is liable to be paid by the firm. In appeal, the appellate authority has affirmed the said order. The appellate authority held that the reconstitution of firm has taken place on 01.04.1994 i.e., nearly one year after the members of the Khemka family were introduced as partners. Therefore, it accepted the genuineness of the old firm as well as the new firm but it held it is a colourable device to evade payment of tax".
9. Hon'ble Court after taking into consideration various decisions and analyzing the provisions of section 45 and sub- section (4) thereto; meaning of transfer as given in section 2(47);9
Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 section 14 of Indian Partnership Act; and also the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed and held as under :-
"24. Therefore, in order to attract Section 45(4) of the Act, the capital asset of the firm should be transferred in favour of a partner, resulting in firm ceasing to have any interest in the capital asset transferred and the partners should acquire exclusive interest in the capital asset. In other words, the interest the firm has in the capital asst should be extinguished and the partners in whose favour the transfer is made should acquire that interest. Then only the profits or a gain arising from such transfer is liable to tax under Section 45(4) of the Act.
25. In the instant case, the partnership firm had purchased the property under a registered sale deed in the name of the firm. The property did not stand in the name of any individual partners. No individual partners brought that capital asset as capital contribution into the firm. Five partners brought in cash by way of capital when the firm was reconstituted on 28.04.1993. Nearly a year thereafter on 01.04.1994 by way of retirement, the erstwhile three partners took their share in the partnership asset and went out of the partnership. After the retirement of three partners, the partnership continued to exist and the business was carried on by the reaming five partners. There was no dissolution of the firm or at any rate there was no distribution of capital asset on 01.04.1994 when three partners retired from the partnership firm. What was given to the retiring partners is cash representing the value of their share in the partnership. No capital asset was transferred on the date of retirement under the deed of retirement deed dated 01.04.1994. In the absence of distribution of capital asset and in the absence of transfer of capital asset in favour of the retiring partners, no profit or gain arose in the hands of the partnership firm. Therefore, the question of the firm being assessed under Section 45(4) and charging them tax for the profits or gains which did not accrue to them would not arise.
26. It was contended on behalf of the revenue that five incoming partners brought money into the firm. Three erstwhile partners who retired from the partners on 01.04.1994 took money and left the property to the incoming partners. It is a device adopted by these partners in order to evade payment of profits or gains. As rightly held by this Court in Gurunath's case (supra) it is taxable. This argument proceeds on the premise that the immovable property belongs to the erstwhile partners and that after retirement the erstwhile partners have taken cash and given the property to the incoming partners. The property belongs to the partnership firm. It did not belong to the partners. The partners only had a share in the partnership asset. When the five partners came into the partnership and brought cash by way of capital contribution to the extent of their contribution, they were entitled to the 10 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 proportionate share in the interest in the partnership firm. When the retiring partners took cash and retired, they were not relinquishing their interest in the immovable property. What they relinquished is their share in the partnership. Therefore, there is no transfer of a capital asset, as such; no capital gains or profit arises in the facts of this case. In that view of the matter, Section 45(4) has no application to the facts of this case.
27. In Gurunath's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs A N Naik Associates - (2004) 265 ITR 346 (BOMBAy0. In Naik's case, the asset of the partnership firm was transferred to a retiring partner by way of a deed of retirement. A memorandum of family settlement was entered into and the business of those firms as set out therein was distributed in terms of the family settlement as the party desired that various matters consisting the business and assets thereto be divided separately and portioned. The term has also provided that such of those assets or liabilities belonging to or due from any of the firms allotted, the parties thereto in the schedule annexed shall be transferred or assigned irrevocably and possession made over and all such documents, deeds, declarations, affidavits, petitions, letters and alike as are reasonably required by the party entitled to such transfer would be effected. It is based on this document and subsequent deeds of retirement of partnership that the order of assessment was made holding that the assessee are liable for tax on capital gains.
28. In that context, the Bombay High Court held that when the assets of the partnership is transferred to a retiring partner, the partnership which is assessable to tax ceases to have a right or its right in the property stands extinguished in favour of the partner to whom it is transferred. If so read, it will further the object and purpose and intent of amendment of Section 45. Once that be the case, the transfer of assets of the partnership to the retiring partners would be amount to the transfer of capital assets in the nature of capital gains and business profits which is chargeable to tax under Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act. In that context, it was held the word "otherwise" takes into its sweep not only cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring assets in favour of a retiring partner. It is in this context the Bombay High Court held that Section 45(4) was attracted. Therefore, to attract Section 45(4) there should be a transfer of a capital asset from the firm to the retiring partners, by which the firms ceases to have any right in the property which is so transferred. In order words, its right to property should stand extinguished and the retiring partners acquire absolute title to the property.
29. In the instant case, the partnership firm did not transfer any right in the capital asset in favour of the retiring partner. The 11 Electroplast Engineers ITA No. 5363/Mum/2014 partnership firm did not cease to hold the property and consequently, its right to the property is not extinguished. Conversely, the retiring partner did not acquire any right in the property as no property was transferred in their favour. The Division Bench in Gurunath's case (supra) did not appreciate this distinguishing factor and by wrong application of the law laid down by the Bombay High Court held the assessee in that case is also liable to pay capital gains tax under Section 45(4). Therefore, the said judgment does not lay down correct law".
10. Thus, in view of our discussion above and respectfully following the ratio, as discussed by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court as aforesaid, we hold that there is no transfer of capital asset by way of distribution of capital asset at the time of making the payments to the retiring partners and therefore, no capital gain is chargeable to tax in hands of the assessee firm. Accordingly, order of the CIT(A) is set aside and addition made stands deleted. Thus, ground no. 1 as raised by the assessee is allowed.
11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd November, 2015.Sd/- Sd/- (िड. क नाकर राव) (अिमत शु ला) लेखा सद य याईक सद य (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 2nd November, 2015 त/Copy to:- . 1) यथ /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) -34, Mumbai. 4) The CIT -24, Mumbai.
5) िवभागीय ितिनिध "जी", आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. "G" Bench, Mumbai.
6) गाड फाईल \ Copy to Guard File.
आदे शानस ु ार/By Order उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मब ंु ई Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T., Mumbai *च हान व.िन.स *Chavan, Sr.PS
CA Vinay V. Kawdia
Introduction: S. 45(3) and S. 45(4) were brought in to the statute book to deem pooling of assets by partners in to the firm and distribution of assets by the firm to partners on dissolution or otherwise, as transfers for tax purposes with a view to block certain escape routes for avoiding capital gains tax. Section 2(47) of the Act, which inclusively defines the term “transfer” in relation to capital assets, becomes a stranger in this context. Typical tax controversies qua transfer of property between firm and partners are discussed hereunder.
Section 45. (3) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) in which he is or becomes a partner or member, by way of capital contribution or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place and, for the purposes of section 48, the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm, association or body as the value of the capital asset shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset.
Legislative intent as explained by CBDT in circular No. 495 dt. 22.09.87: One of the devices used by assessees to evade tax on capital gains is to convert an asset held individually into an asset of the firm in which the individual is a partner. The decision of the Supreme Court in Kartikeya V. Sarabhai v. CIT  156 ITR 509 has set at rest the controversy as to whether such a conversion amounts to transfer. The Court held that such conversion fell outside the scope of capital gain taxation. The rationale advanced by the Court is, that the consideration for the transfer of the personal asset is indeterminate, being the right which arises or accrues to the partner during the subsistence of the partnership to get his share of the profits from time to time and on dissolution of the partnership to get the value of his share from the net partnership assets. With a view to blocking this escape route for avoiding capital gains tax, the Finance Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (3) in section 45.
Section 45. (4) The profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolutionof a firm or other association of persons or body of individuals (not being a company or a co-operative society) or otherwise, shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the firm, association or body, of the previous year in which the said transfer takes place and, for the purposes of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such transfer shall be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.
Legislative intent as explained by CBDT in circular No. 495 dt. 22.09.87: Conversion of partnership assets into individual assets on dissolution or otherwise also forms part of the same scheme of tax avoidance. Accordingly, the Finance Act, 1987 has inserted new sub-section (4) in section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
A) Legislative Background:
Prior to introduction of s. 45(3) / s. 45(4), the settled legal position was that, a partnership firm is not a distinct legal entity and the partnership property in law belongs to all the partners constituting the firm, though the partnership firm may possess a personality distinct from the persons constituting it and, therefore, on dissolution, as the firm has no separate rights of its own in the partnership assets, the consequence of distribution, division or allotment of assets of the partners which flows upon dissolution after discharge of liabilities is nothing but a mutual adjustment of rights between the partners and there is no question of any extinguishment of the firm’s rights in the partnership assets amounting to a transfer of assets within the meaning of s. 2(47) of the Act.
Similarly, in case of retirement of partners, prior to the Finance Act, 1987, in the case of a partnership it was held that the assets are of the partners and not of the partnership. Therefore, if on retirement, a partner received his share of the assets, may be in the form of a single asset, it was held that there was no transfer as in case of dissolution of the partnership.
Thus, Sec. 45(4) seems to have been introduced with a view to overcome the judgment of the apex Court in Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 49 (SC) and other judgments which took a view that the firm on its own has no right but it is the partners who own jointly or in common the asset and thereby remedy the mischief occasioned.
Sub-section 4 of section 45 imposes tax, w.e.f. 01.04.1988, on the firm when its capital assets are distributed on dissolution or otherwise; and for this purpose, the FMV of the assets on the date of such distribution is deemed to be full value of consideration accruing to or received by it. In view of this change, s. 47(ii) was deleted by the same Act w.e.f. the same date. By enacting s. 45(4), parliament has provided that firm shall pay capital gain tax as if there is a transfer (by legal fiction), even though there would be none under the general law of partnership.
[Note: Before the introduction of ss. (4), there was cl. (ii) of s. 47 to the effect that, any distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm, BOI or other AOP shall not be regarded as “transfer”]
Prior to introduction of section 45(3)/ 45(4), courts were invariably referring to the definition of ‘transfer’ u/s 2(47) to decide whether there is chargeable transfer of property between firm and partners in case of dissolution/retirement/reconstitution etc. However, in view of the above peculiar legislative history, post amendments w.e.f. 01.04.1988, it appears that, section 45 (4) is a charging section/ self-contained code and the same should be interpreted independantly without referring to the definition of ‘transfer’ under s. 2(47) of the Act, which is otherwise an inclusive definition.
In fact, these provisions were introduced to cover certain cases of transactions between partner/member and firm or AOP/ BOI as the case may be. These special provisions have specific purpose and are exceptions to general rules about transfer between partner/ member and firm /AOP, etc.
Thus, in view of omission of cl. (ii) of s. 47 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, any transaction resulting in distribution of assets on dissolution of a firm or otherwise has to be considered as ‘transfer’ despite the fact that there is no amendment in s. 2(47). Therefore, transfer of assets to the partner on dissolution is chargeable to tax under s. 45(4) [CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346 (Bombay)]. A CBDT Circular No. 495 dt. 22.09.1987 has also clarified that Sec. 47(ii) was omitted and S. 49(1)(iii)(b) was amended in consequence of inserting S. 45(4).
A.1) “Distribution” or “otherwise” – Meaning: Whether this sub section covers only a transfer on dissolution or also a transfer during the subsistence of a firm is controversial and depends on the meaning of the words “Distribution”, and “or otherwise”. Distribution is akin to final settlement. As held by Bombay High Court, every transfer is not a “distribution” because the later involes “division, realisation, encashment of assets and appropriation” after settling the creditor dues etc. The recostruction of firms (retirement/ introduction of partner etc.) should not come within the expression “or otherwise”because it will render the words “distribution of capital assets” otiose. In fact it runs contrary to legislative intent, which was simply to bring tax transfers in the course of final settlement between partners (thus the word ‘distribution’), which is the reason s. 47(ii) was deleted by the amendment that introduced subsection 45(4).
Thus, the purpose and object of the Act of 1987 was to charge tax arising on distribution of capital assets of firms which otherwise was not subject to taxation. Therefore, language of s. 45(4) should be construed to mean that the expression “otherwise”, has not to be read ejusdem generis with the expression, “dissolution of a firm or body or AOP“. The expression “otherwise” has to be read with the words “transfer of capital assets” by way of distribution of capital assets. If so read, it becomes clear that even when a firm is in existence and there is a transfer of capital assets to retiring partner it comes within the expression “otherwise” as the object of the Amending Act was to remove the loophole which existed whereby capital gain tax was not chargeable. [CIT vs. A.N. Naik Associates (2004) 265 ITR 346 (Bombay) followed in Vikas Academy vs. ITO (2015) 60 taxmann.com 349 (Chennai), etc.]
B) Chargeability of sums/assets received by partners on retirement/dissolution:
There are a number of judgements of the Supreme Court, as well as the High Courts, according to which when a partner retires from a firm and receives an amount in respect of his share in the partnership, there is no transfer of interest of the partner in the assets of the firm and no part of the amount received by him would be assessable to capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. The reason for the same is that an amount paid to a partner upon retirement, after taking accounts and upon deduction of liabilities, does not involve an element of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act.
In support of the above, reliance is placed on the following precedents:
(i) CIT Vs Mohanbhai Pamabhai  91 ITR 393 (Guj)
The Gujarat High Court, in the case of CIT Vs Mohanbhai Pamabhai  91 ITR 393 (Guj), held that when a partner retires from the firm and receives his share of an amount calculated on the value of the net partnership assets of the firm, there was no transfer of interests of the partner in the assets of the firm and no part of the amount received by him would be assessable as capital gains under section 45 of the Act.
The Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgement of the Gujarat High Court.
The Supreme Court, in view of its earlier judgement, in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai Vs CIT  156 ITR 509 (SC), dismissed the appeal of the Department and thus, the aforesaid judgement of the Gujarat High court was affirmed by the Supreme Court [(1987) 165 ITR 166].
It was held in the aforesaid judgement of Gujarat High Court that when a partner retires from a firm and the amount of his share in the partnership assets after deduction of liabilities and prior charges is determined on taking accounts in the manner prescribed by the partnership law, there is no element of transfer of interest in the partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners and the amount received by the retiring partner is not “capital gain” under section 45 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.
(ii) CIT Vs P.N. Panjawani (Decd)  80 DTR 200 (Karn)
In this case, the provisions of section 2(47) were examined, in the context of reduction of share in partnership firm on induction of new partners.
It was held that reduction of share of old partners of the firm on reconstitution of firm by inducting new partners and withdrawal of amount by old partners out of the capital contributed by new partners, did not constitute transfer in the hands of partners, making them liable to capital gains tax. In other words, admission of new partners and assignment of right in the firm to the new partners out of the rights of the assessee for consideration does not amount to transfer in the hands of assessee u/s 2(47) and consequently not liable to tax u/s 45.
(iii) The correct position of law was reiterated by Bombay High Court in case of Prashant S.Joshi Vs ITO  324 ITR 154 (Bom) :
Facts: The assessee, who was partner in a firm, retired from partnership on 11-3-2005. Under the deed of dissolution, he, in addition to the balance lying to his credit on capital and current accounts, also received certain amount during the relevant assessment year in full and final settlement of his dues on account of his retirement. In the returns of income for the relevant assessment years, the assessee disclosed receipt of said amounts but did not offer same to tax on ground that it was a capital receipt not liable to tax.
It was held in this case that ex-facie section 45(4) deals with a situation where there is a transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of capital assets on the dissolution of a firm or otherwise.
Evidently, on the admitted position, there was no transfer of a capital asset by way of distribution of a capital asset on the dissolution of a firm or otherwise on the facts of the case.
It has been clearly laid down in this judgement that,
During the subsistence of a partnership, a partner does not possess an interest in specie in any particular asset of the partnership. During the subsistence of a partnership, a partner has a right to obtain a share in profits. On dissolution of a partnership or upon retirement, a partner is entitled to a valuation of his share in the net assets of the partnership which remain after meeting the debts and liabilities. An amount paid to a partner upon retirement, after taking accounts and upon deduction of liabilities, does not involve an element of transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. Therefore, there is no transfer of capital asset by way of a distribution of the capital assets, on the dissolution of a firm or otherwise.
iv) CIT V/s. R. Lingamallu Raghukumar  247 ITR 801 (SC)
Held:On retirement of assessee-partner from the firm there was no element of transfer of interest in partnership assets by the retired partner to the continuing partners and the excess amount received by him was not assessable to capital gains.
Followed in –
- CIT vs. Riyaz A. Sheikh (IT Appeal No. 1969/2011) (Bombay High Court)
Held:Amount received by an erstwhile partner on his retirement from partnership firm arising on transfer of goodwill is not liable to be taxed as long term capital gain.
- ITAT Pune in- ITO vs. Rajnish M. Bhandari (ITA No. 469/PN/11)
Facts: Assessee was a partner to the extent of 37.5% of the shares and was paid Rs 54,59,083/- over and above the balance in his capital account. Assessee claimed this amount as capital receipt not liable to tax. As per Revenue, the additional consideration received by the assessee was on account of relinquishment of his pre-existing rights in the partnership firm, and therefore, the same was in the nature of capital gain liable to tax as per the provisions of sections 45 read with section 2(47)(i) & (ii) of the Act.
Held: The amount under question received by assessee on retirement from partnership firm is not liable to be taxed as capital gain.[Followed by ITAT Pune in Sachin B. Nikam vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1288/PN/2014 dt. 26.08.16]
- ACIT vs. N. Prasad [(2015) 113 ITD 257 (Hyderabad)]
Facts: On retirement, the assessee apart from his share capital of Rs.1 crore had received Rs.25 lakhs surplus from the partnership firm. The Assessing Officer held that surplus received by assessee from the firm is nothing but goodwill paid to him for leaving the firm. The goodwill is taxable under the head capital gains income.
Held: The amount of Rs.1.25 cores was paid to the assessee towards his share capital and not for relinquishing or extinguishing his rights over any assets of the firm. Accordingly, receipt was held to be not taxable as capital gain.
- Chalasani V. Rao vs. ITO (ITA No. 70 of 2000 dt. 03.08.12 (Andhra Pradesh)
On dissolution/reconstitution of partnership firm, only firm is taxable on capital gain on assets distributed to Partners: The legislature did not choose to amend the law by making the partner liable when it amended the I.T. Act, 1961 by introducing clause (4) to s.45 by the Finance Act,1987 w.e.f 1.4.1988 and made only the firm liable. Therefore the contention of the assessee has to be accepted and that of the Revenue is liable to be rejected.
- Sharadha Terry Products Ltd vs. ACIT  68 taxmann.com 282 (Chennai)
Whatever amount assesse receives on retirement as partner from firm, on account of credit balance standing in capital account/ current account, is his share in partnership and not any consideration for relinquishing or extinguishing his rights over any assets of firm, and accordingly the same is not chargeable under section 45(4) as capital gains.
[Alert:Delhi High Court in Bishan Lal Kanodia v. CIT  257 ITR 449 (Delhi) taken the view that where the retiring partner leaves the firm by acceptance of a lump sum consideration by assigning or relinquishing his interest, there can be liability for him, if he receives more than what he has invested. The issue is pending before Supreme Court as on date. Therefore, it is better for taxpayers to avoid the route of retirement by assignment or relinquishment for a lump sum consideration.]
Whether, the receipt under question is taxable u/s 28 under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business/Profession’?
In case of Prashant S. Joshi V/s. ITO (supra) the revenue had sought to urge that the amount received by the assessee was chargeable to tax under clauses (iv) and (v) of section 28.
Held:Section 28 provides certain categories of income which shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head ‘Profits and gains of business of profession’. Clause (iv) of section 28 specifies the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of profession. Ex facie, section 28(iv) does not apply to benefits which are paid in cash or money. Similarly, clause (v) of section 28 refers to any interest, salary, bonus, commission or remuneration, by whatever name called, due to or received by a partner of a firm from such firm. A payment made to a partner in realization of his share in the net value of the assets upon his retirement from a firm does not fall under clause (v) of section 28.
C) Firm distributing immovable asset to partners on dissolution-S. 45(4):
In CIT v. Vijaylaxmi Metal Industries  256 ITR 540 (Mad), The High Court found that Section 45(4) would have application only where there is distribution and not where business of the firm continued apparently by the surviving partners with legal heirs. The liability gets crystallized only when the firm’s assets are transferred either to surviving partners or legal heirs of the deceased partner. It is only in the year in which such transfer of asset took place, that there could be liability. In other words, if distribution occurred only in a later year, the assessment can be made only in such later year. If there is no distribution at all and the business is carried on by the successor firm/AOP, there can be no occasion for the liability under section 45(4) [S.B. Bilimoria and Co. v. Asst. CIT  317 ITR (AT) 203 (Mum), CIT vs. Manglore Ganesh Beedi Works (2004) 265 ITR 658 (Kar.)]
In yet another case, where a retiring partner’s account was settled without any distribution of assets to the retiring partner, it was held that there can be no liability under section 45(4) for the firm as held by Tribunal in Purayannur Indsutries v. Asst. CIT  317 ITR (AT) 56 (Cochin).
D) Partner receiving immovable asset while continuing with the firm as a partner – taxability in the hands of firm-s. 45(4):
Under such situation, there is no distribution of asset on dissolution or otherwise and accordingly, section 45(4) shall not apply. However, the consequences shall be decided by applying section 2(47) of the act. And, accordingly provisions of section 50C may also apply in the hands of the firm.
Apex Court in B.T. Patil & Sons vs. CGT (2001) 247 ITR 588 (SC) held that, [prior to introduction of section 45(4)]:
“In our view, when there is a dissolution of a partnership or a partner retires and obtains in lieu of his interest in the firm, an asset of the firm, no transfer is involved … But the position is different when, during the subsistence of a partnership, an asset of the partnership becomes the asset of only one of the partners thereof; there is, in such a case, a transfer of that asset by the partnership to the individual partners.”
The ratio of the judgment as applicable today is that when a subsisting partner receives from the firm an asset then there is a transfer of that asset from the partnership to the individual partner.
E) Two partners – one died – other continuing business as a going concern / takeover of business by one of the partners on dissolution of firm as proprietory concern:
Section 45(4) deems transfer of assets distributed to a partner on dissolution or otherwise. There should not only be dissolution, but also distribution to attract the provision. Where one of the two partners of the firm dies, there is dissolution of the firm. But where the surviving the partner carries on the business with all the assets and liabilities as a going concern, there is no distribution within the meaning of the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Sakthi Trading Co. v. CIT  250 ITR 871 (SC). Therefore there is no liability for the Capital gains tax [CIT v. Moped and Machines  281 ITR 52 (MP)]
Kerala High Court in CIT v. Southern Tubes  306 ITR 216 (Ker) has held that there was liability for capital gains tax, when the entire business was taken over by surviving partner consequent on dissolution under section 45(4). Further, Hon’ble Kerala high Court while deciding as above referred to section 2(47)(vi) to hold that since, Sec. 2(47)(vi) covers every agreement or arrangement in whatever manner which has the effect of transferring or enabling enjoyment of any immovable property, it will also cover dissolution of firm and takeover of assets by partner.
[NOTE: However, Clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Act, as explained by CBDT in its circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987, was introduced to cover those cases of transfer of ownership where the prospective buyer becomes owner of the property by becoming a member of a company, cooperative society, AOP or by way of any agreement or any arrangement whereby such person acquires any right in any building which is either being constructed or which is to be constructed [C.S. Atwal vs. CIT, ITA No. 200 of 2013 (P & H)]. Even otherwise, as discussed earlier, post section 45(4) it is not correct to refer the definition of transfer u/s 2(47) in above circumstances. ]
Capital gains—Applicability of s. 45(4)—Take over of business of firm by one of the partners on dissolution—In view of omission of cl. (ii) of s. 47 w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, any transaction resulting in distribution of assets on dissolution of a firm has to be considered as ‘transfer’ in terms of s. 2(47) despite the fact that there is no amendment in s. 2(47)—Therefore, transfer of assets to the partner on dissolution was chargeable to tax under s. 45(4) [Suvardhan vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 404 (Kar.)]
F) Four partners – two newly introduced- thereafter in the same year original four partners retired- S. 45(4):
Capital gains—Applicability of s. 45(4)—Reconstitution vis-a-vis dissolution of firm—On reconstitution of firm, two new partners admitted and on second reconstitution all the four old partners retired and the newly introduced partners continued the business of firm—There was thus transfer of assets of the firm in the sense that the assets of the firm as had been held by the erstwhile partners is transferred to the newly added two partners though all along the assets of the firm continued in the hands of the firm—Therefore, there is transfer of capital assets within the meaning of s. 2(47), attracting the capital gain transaction in terms of s. 45(4). [CIT vs. Gurunath Talkies (2010) 328 ITR 59 (Kar.)]
In author’s opinion this is case of reconstruction of firm to which section 45(4) should not apply.
Change in constitution of firm:
Applicability of s. 45(4) – Change in constitution of firm – Ownership of the property does not change with the change in the constitution of the firm. As long as there is no change in ownership of the properties of the firm there is no transfer of capital asset. If a partner retires he does not transfer any right in the property in favour of the continuing partners. What is transferred is the right to share the income of the properties in favour of continuing partners. Similarly, when a partnership is reconstituted by adding a new partner, there is no transfer of assets within the meaning of s. 45(4) [CIT vs. Kunnamkulam Mill Board (2002) 257 ITR 544 (Kerala)]
Reconstitution of firm – No transfer of capital assests – Applicability of Section 45 – Assessee-firm was reconstituted and five partners were inducted into firm by deed—Three old partners retired through deed of retirement-when retiring partners took cash and retired, they were not relinquishing their interest in immovable property—But they relinquished their share in partnership—Therefore, there was no transfer of capital asset—No capital gains or profit had arisen—Thus, Section 45(4) was not applicable—When retiring partner takes only money towards value of his share and when there is no distribution of capital asset/assets among partners there is no transfer of capital asset and consequently no profits or gains is payable u/s 45(4) [CIT vs. Dynamic Enterprises (2014) 223 TAXMAN 331 (Karn)]
The High Court in CIT v. P.N. Panjawani  356 ITR 676 (Karn) endorsed the view, that liability on reconstitution or dissolution is covered by Section 45(4), which is applicable only where there is distribution of assets to retiring or erstwhile partners.
G) Two partners – immovable assets revalued – excess amount transferred to the capital accounts of the partners – thereafter two new partners were added:
Admission of partner, revaluation and withdrawal of capital account balances by retiring partners don’t give rise to taxable capital gains in firm’s hands. [ITO vs. Fine developers  26 taxmann.com 202 (Mum.)]
Capital gains—Transfer of capital asset—Assessee was a partnership firm-During the year, two new partners were admitted and both of them brought into certain capital-The land owned by assessee firm was revalued as on 01.04.2005 and increase capital on account of revaluation of the land was added to the capital account of existing partners-AO held that long term capital gains of specified amount u/s. 45(4) arose on revaluation of certain assets at time of induction of two new partners to Assessee firm—Held, implication of amendment of S. 45(3) and (4) was that when firm transfers any asset to partner it would be liable to “capital gain” on fair market value on date of transfer—Such transfer could be at time of dissolution of firm when assets were transferred to partners or when any partner was allocated any asset of firm while leaving firm—In absence of transfer of any asset of firm to partners, S. 45(4) could not be invoked— As long as there was no change in ownership of firm and its properties, merely for simple reason that partnership of firm stood reconstituted by adding new partner, there was no transfer of capital asset within the meaning of S. 45(4)—In present case, assessee continued to be owner of land and no transfer took place which was necessary to invoke S. 45(4) for levying capital gain on transfer of capital asset—Orders of authorities below set aside—Assessee’s appeal allowed. [Radhu Palace vs. ACIT (2014) 148 ITD 424 (Delhi)]
H) Distribution of assets by firm on dissolution to partners as well as ex-partners:
While sub-s. (4) of s. 45 does not specifically provide that the distribution of assets should be to the partners of the firm or members of the AOP, it follows logically that the assets of the firm can only be distributed among the partners. Therefore, such condition will have to be read in s. 45(4) and, thus, distribution of assets to outsiders for satisfaction of their debts, representing their capital on the date of retirement is not caught within the mischief of s. 45(4).
Capital gains—Land was purchased with the funds of the firm and it was shown in the balance sheet of the firm from year to year—Land was distributed in connection with the dissolution of the firm—Therefore, such transfer is covered directly under s. 45(4)—However, three partners had retired earlier and the distribution made to them to the extent of 38 per cent of land at the time of dissolution was not qua partners but as ex-partners—Distribution of assets to outsiders for satisfaction of their debts representing their capital on the date of retirement is not caught within the mischief of s. 45(4)—Hence, only 62 per cent of the value of the land is to be considered for the purpose of computing capital gains under s. 45(4). [Gandamal & Sons vs. ACIT (2007)107 TTJ 228 (Pune)]
I) One of the partners introduced immovable capital asset as capital in the firm by book entry – firm sold the asset thereafter:
When a partner pools his asset with partnership assets by contributing such asset as capital of the firm, it becomes the property of the firm under section 14 of The Partnership Act by operation of law without the formality of the conveyance.
Where an immovable property is contributed as capital by the partner crediting his capital account and debiting his asset account, such pooling would convert the proprietary property as firm’s property by operation of the partnership law, though it is not registered because there is no conveyance requiring registration.
Two individuals purchased plot jointly in 1983. They jointly constructed hospital building on the plot in 1988. Partnership firm was formed in 1992 with 3 partners. Partners introduced the said property towards their capital contribution when the assessee firm was formed w.e.f. 01-04-1992. Thereafter, the land and the building of the hospital have been shown as the asset of the partnership firm.
The land, building and the machinery of the hospital has been sold on 31/12/2007. Firm has been dissolved w.e.f. 02/04/2008. Therefore, the assets of the firm have been sold before the dissolution of the firm.
The contention of revenue was that the capital gain on sale of property was taxable in the hands of the partnership firm and not the individual partners.
The contention of the assessee firm is that there was no transfer of the ownership to the assessee firm by the partners even though the land and hospital building was introduced as a capital contribution. Even if the immovable property is introduced by the partners towards their capital contribution but same must be by way of proper conveyance deed registered under the Indian Registration Act.
Held by ITAT in M/s. Chakrabarty Medical Centre vs. TRO– ITA No. 2277/PN/2012 (ITAT Pune):
Under s. 239 of the Indian Contract Act and s. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, for the purpose of bringing the separate properties of a partner into the stock of the firm it is not necessary to have recourse to any written document at all, that as soon as a partner intends that his separate properties should become partnership properties and they are treated as such, then by virtue of the provisions of the Contract Act and the Partnership Act, the properties become the properties of the firm and that this result is not prohibited by any provision in the Transfer of Property Act or the Indian Registration Act. The legal position, therefore, appears to be that no written or registered document is necessary for an individual to contribute any land or immovable property as a contribution against his share of the capital of a new partnership business. Consequently, the capital gain on sale of the property is assessable in the hands of the firm;
[In K. D. Pandey Vs. CWT 108 ITR 214.(All.) their Lordship referred to Sec. 14 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Sec. 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and held that the partner can bring his immovable property into the stock or capital of the firm otherwise than by means of a registered instrument of conveyance.]
J) Individual introducing immovable capital asset in the firm by book entry – s. 45(3) vis-à-vis S. 50C:
As per section 45(3) of the Act, whenever a partner contributes any capital asset in the partnership firm then for the purpose of section 48, the value of capital asset recorded in the books of accounts of the firm shall be deemed to be the full value consideration received as a result of such transfer for the purpose of computing capital gain.
Therefore, the issue that arises here is that in case of contribution of land or building in partnership firm whether the value recorded in books of accounts of the firm [as per deeming fiction of section 45(3)] or the value adopted for stamp duty purpose [as per deeming fiction of section 50C] will be considered as the full value consideration for the purpose of computing capital gain u/s 48.
In author’s opinion, as discussed earlier, post amendments w.e.f. 01.04.1988, it appears that, section 45 (3) is a charging section/ self-contained code and the same should be interpreted independently without referring to section 50C. Even otherwise, both S. 45(3) and S. 50C are independent deeming provisions as regrads ‘full value consideration received as a result of transfer’ for the purpose of section 48, and one deeming fiction shall not override the other unless otherwise provided specifically.
A plain reading of section 45(3) would reveal that the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to another entity by way of capital contribution or otherwise shall be chargeable to tax. The profit or gain would arise only when the transfer has been made at a price which is more than the cost price and the difference between the cost price and amount at which transfer has taken place can be charged under section 45(3). In the instant case the purchase price of land as recorded in the transferor’s book and recorded in the books of the joint venture are the same. As per provisions of section 45(3) price of land recorded in the books of joint venture is required to be considered as receipt of full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer of capital assets. Once the price recorded in the joint venture’s books is treated as full value of consideration, the provisions do not permit substitution of any value so as to make addition under section 45(3). S. 45(3) does not permit AO to substitute the full value of consideration other than the amount recorded in the books of account of the joint venture.[ITO vs. Chiraayu estate & Dev. P. Ltd. (AY-06-07) (2011) 14 taxmann.com 41 (Mum.), Similar View: ITO vs. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 74 taxmann.com 187 (Kol.)]
[Alert: There are judgments’ to the effect that, where immovable property is transferred by a partner to the firm as a capital contribution and registration does not take place by paying stamp duty, the case would be covered under section 45(3) and the provisions of section 50C cannot be invoked [Carlton Hotels vs. ACIT (2009) 122 TTJ 515 etc.]. However, post amendment to section 50C by F.A. 2009, even unregistered transfers shall also be subject to section 50C. However, in author’s humble opinion, still after the said amendment, section 50C shall not override section 45(3), though there are no judicial precedents available to this effect, for the post amendment years.]
K) Vesting of firm properties in company on conversion of firm to Pvt. Ltd. Company:
- The closing stock of the firm on conversion of firm to Company should be valued at the cost price and not market value. [CIT v. Hansa Footwear ( 344 ITR 30)(AP)]
- There was no dissolution of firm when the Co was formed with same partners as its shareholders. Properties of the erstwhile firm vested in the limited company and there is difference between distribution on dissolution and vesting. Therefore, s. 45(4) is not attracted [CIT v. Texspin Eng.& Mfg. Works ( 263 ITR 345)(Bom.)]
- Revaluation of assets before conversion of firm into Company does not attract 45(4) [CIT v. Rita Mechanical Works [(2012) 344 ITR 544)(P&H)] ITO v. Gulabdas Printers (4 ITRTrib. 264)(Ahd.)]
L) Asset received on dissolution/retirement by partner – Period of holding:
Capital gains—Short-term or long-term—Property taken over by partner on dissolution of firm—Benefit of s. 49(1)(iii)(b) is available only if the dissolution of the firm has taken place at any time before 1st April, 1987—In the instant case, the firm was dissolved on 15th April, 2001—Therefore, benefit of the ss. 2(42A) r/w 49(1)(iii)(b) is not available to the assessee and the period of holding of the assets by the assessee is to be reckoned only from the date of dissolution of the firm—Therefore, assessee became the owner of the property only on taking over the property on the dissolution of the firm—Since he sold the property within three days of acquiring it, the property was rightly treated as a short-term capital asset [P.P. Menon vs. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 122 (Kerala)]
Another view: [prior to introduction of s. 45(3)/ 45(4)]:
Capital gains—Long-term or short-term- A.Y. 1979-80- Machinery received on retirement from firm—Firm held the machinery for over sixty months—That period should be taken into account for determining the period for which the assessee partner had owned the machinery—Capital gain arising to assessee on sale of machinery was long-term capital gain.—CIT vs. Kamala Devi (1997) 227 ITR 701 (Mad) followed. [CIT vs. S. Vijaylaxmi (2000) 242 ITR 46 (Mad.)]
M) Asset in the nature of stock in trade/current asset introduced as capital in the firm – whether section 45(3) attracted?
From the overall scheme of section 45 and from the plain reading of section 45(3), it appears that, section 45 is confined to transfer of capital assets only. Therefore when stock in trade is introduced as capital in the firm, the deemed consideration as recorded in the books of the firm [as per s. 45(3)] can have no value on transfer of stock in trade.
Section 45(3) is applicable only in respect of a capital asset, thus, where partners of a firm had in fact brought in land into partnership business as a current asset and said firm upon receipt of said land also accounted for it as a current asset and not a capital asset, section 45(3) would be inapplicable.[ITO vs. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 74 taxmann.com 187 (Kol.)]
Alternate view – against the assessee:
Surplus arising from making over assessee’s personal asset, i.e., plot of land in question, to the firm as his contribution to its capital account is a profit or gain accrued to the assessee and is chargeable to tax—Whatever may be the nature of the asset initially held by a partner before the same is contributed by him as capital contribution to a partnership firm, it shall assume the character of a capital asset at the time when it is contributed to a firm as capital contribution and any surplus arising therefrom is chargeable to tax as capital gain… AO is directed to compute the capital gain arising after taking the value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer at Rs.11.50 crores being the amount recorded in the books of account of the firm as well as in the books of the assessee. [DLF universal Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 128 TTJ 121 (SB)(Delhi)]
There is an old saying – Prevention is always better than cure!! Therefore, to the extent possible, it is always better to plan the introduction of partners in to firm and retirement from the firm well in advance and with utmost care so as to avoid future tax controversies and litigations in the hands of the partners as well as firm.