IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

“C” BENCH : BANGALORE

BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Assessment Year : 2014-15

The Assistant
M/s. Jupiter Capital Pvt. Ltd.,
Commissioner of Income
# 54, Richmond Road,
Vs. Tax,
Bangalore – 560 025.
Circle – 4 (1) (1),
PAN: AABCJ5666R
Bangalore.
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Shri S. Parthasarathi, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri D. Sudhakara Rao, CIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 12.09.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2018

ORDER
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of
ld. CIT (A)-4, Bangalore dated 14.12.2017for Assessment Year 2014-15.
2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under.
“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT) erred in
upholding the order of the Assessing officer and not allowing the
claim of capital loss incurred by the appellant due to reduction of
capital by the investee company.

2. The CIT erred in holding that the there is no transfer of assets in

due to reduction of capital based on the order of the court.

3. The CIT ought to have appreciated the fact that there is an

extinguishment and relinquishment by the appellant when the
investment it had made stands reduced.

4. The CIT erred in holding that as there is no change in the

shareholding of Asianet News Network P Ltd, the investee company,
there is no transfer within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act.

5. The CIT has made a gross mistake in assuming that the "word
"extinguished" is mentioned in the petition or court order, it does not
amount to translate the meaning of the word "extinguishment of
rights" as per section 2(47) of the Act".

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 2 of 19

6. The assumption made is contrary to the provisions of law and the

findings of the Apex court.

7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of
hearing, the appellant prays that the honorable Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly:

a. Allow the claim of capital loss made by the appellant amounting to

Rs 164,48,55,840.

b. Any other relief that the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeals) deem fit.

The appellant further prays that the Commissioner of Income tax

(Appeals) pass necessary order to stay the collection of demand till
the disposal of this appeal, based on the powers confirmed on them.”
3. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that the copy of written submissions filed
before CIT(A) is available on pages 50 to 69 of paper book and out of that,
the relevant portion is available on pages 64 to 69 of paper book. He further
submitted that reliance has been placed by assessee on the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai Vs. CIT
as reported in 228 ITR 163. But this judgment was not followed by CIT(A)
on some invalid reasons given by him. He submitted that the issue in the
present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this judgment
of Hon’ble Apex Court. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of
authorities below.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that on this issue, Para
nos. 6 to 7.3 of the order of CIT(A) are containing entire facts, decision of
the AO, submissions of the assessee before CIT(A) and the final decision of
CIT(A) and therefore, these paras are reproduced herein below for the sake
of ready reference.
“6. Disallowance of Capital loss of Rs. 164,48,55,840/- :-
The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant
claimed an amount of Rs. 1,64.48,55,840/- as Long Term
Capital loss from sale of shares. This loss was stated to
accrue against the reduction in share capital of M/s Asianet
News Pvt. Ltd (ANNPL) effected under a capital reduction
scheme. The AO disagreed with the assessee's claim of Long
Term Capital Loss, contending that, the reduction in shares
of ANNPL, did not result in transfer of capital asset as
envisaged u/s 2(47) of the I.T. Act. The AO came to this
conclusion, in light of the finding that, even though the
number of shares has reduced, the face value as well as the

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 3 of 19

shareholding pattern remained the same. The assessee on the

other hand. has argued that there was real transfer of asset.
as the scheme resulted in extinguishment / relinquishment of
part of the Assessee's rights, in the shares of ANNPL. and
therefore the transaction fell within the purview of section
2(47) of the I.T. Act, resulting in consequent claimable Long
Term Capital Loss.

The observations / findings of the AO and the

Assessee's detailed written submissions have been duly
perused. The judicial position on the issue under
consideration and the judgments highlighted by the AO as
well as the appellant have been taken into due consideration,
in the given factual matrix of the present case. The appraisal
of the rival contentions and finding on the issue at hand is
accordingly discussed as hereunder:

6.1 AO's observation:-

The AO has discussed the relevant issues and
recorded her findings, in a succinct manner, in the order
under consideration. The relevant portion of the AO's order
on this point is reproduced as under:-
"8. The issue of contention here is whether a reduction in
share capital, by reducing the number of shares, without
reducing the face value. amounts to a transfer of a capital
asset. Further, whether such reduction amounts to transfer
of Rights? The issue is analysed a follows. An analysis of the
assessee's shareholding pattern is shown as under:
Shareholding pattern as per assessee's submission:
Particulars No. of shares Amount

Opening balance of
149544130 1495441300
investment in ANNPL
Purchase of ANNPL shares from other
3806758 38067585
parties
Loss on extinguishment of shares 153340900 1533409000
Closingbalanceason31.03.2014 9988 99885

9. The Assessee Company invested in total equity shares of

153340900 at face value (Rs. 10) on different dates, in its
subsidiary company, Asianet News Network Private Limited. The
total number of shares, of Asianet News Network was 153505750
out of which the assessee's share was 99.89%. As a result of the
Order of High Court of Bombay, there was a reduction in share
capital of Asianet News Network from 153340900 to 10,000 and
consequently the share of the assessee was reduced proportionately
from 153505750 to 9988. The face value of the shares remained the
same at Rs. 10 even after the reduction. It is pertinent to note that
the shareholding pattern or the percentage of the shares of the

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 4 of 19

assessee did not reduce. i.e. prior to reduction the percentage of

assessee's share was 99.89% and even after reduction the
percentage of assessee's shares remained unchanged at 99.89%.
This means that the assessee did not relinquish its voting power or
extinguish its rights in the shares as the shareholding pattern
remained unaffected. This proves that there was no relinquishment
or extinguishment of rights that has taken place which would have
eventually resulted in a transfer of a capital asset. The following
table depicts the shareholding pattern of the assessee at Asianet
News Network

Period Total Number Number of Value per % of holding

of shares shares held by share (Rs.)
the Assessee
Prior to 153505750 153340900 10 99.88%
reduction
After reduction 10000 9988 9988 99.88%.

10. The AR has himself said that the shares stands reduced and that
the Company, Asia Net News Network had extinguished the number of
shares held by reducing tern. However, the question of
extinguishment of rights with relation to the shareholders does not
arise. It was only reduction of shares by way of extinguishing the
number of shares and not extinguishing the rights of the shareholders.
For the reason that the word "extinguished" is mentioned in the
Petition or the Court Order, it does not amount to translate the
meaning of the word "extinguishment of rights" as per section 2(47)
of the Act. A plain reading of section 2(47) of the Act provides what
amount to a transfer of a capital asset"

"transfer in relation to a capital asset includes

(i) The sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or

(ii) The extinguishment of any rights therein; or
(iii) The compulsory acquisition thereof under any law; or
(iv) In a case where the asset

Extinguishment of Rights would mean that the assessee has parted

with those shares or sold off those shares to a second party. Here, the
assessee has not sold off any shares or has not parted with the shares
as the it still holds the proportionate percentage which he initially
held is still shown as an investment.

The AR has referred to the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai' -1997(9)

TMI 2 – Supreme Court wherein it was held that, the reduction in the
face value of shares amounted to 'extinguishment' within the meaning
of section 2(47) and hence the amount received on such reduction was
taxable as capital gain. However, with due regard, the facts of the
case are contrary to this case as there was no reduction in the face
value of the shares.
http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 5 of 19

11. The AR also referred to the case of DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance
Ltd 312 ITR 63 (Kar) wherein it was held that the cancellation of
allotment of shares leading to forfeiture of share application money
on the taxpayers failure to deposit call money resulted into short
term capital loss with due regard, the facts and circumstances of the
case are different hence not applicable.

Conversely it is seen in the case of Bennett Coleman & co. Ltd V

ALIT (TS-580-ITAT-2011 (Mum) had accepted the revenue's
contention that there is no transfer and that the earlier shares were
replaced by another kind of shares and that the percentage of
shareholding immediately before the reduction of share capital and
immediately after he reduction, remained the same.

Even in the case of CIT V. Rasiklal Manekial (HUF)-1989 (3) TMI 3

– Supreme Court: It was held that in case of exchange that one
person transfers a property to another person in exchange of another
property the property continues to be in existence.

In the light of the above, a total capital loss claimed out of the sale of
shares is hereby disallowed and added back to the return of income."

6.2 Assessee's submission:-

The assessee has strongly objected to the above disallowance
primarily on the ground that the duly-approved share-reduction
scheme clearly resulted in transfer of asset and consequential Long
Term Capital Loss. The relevant portions of the assessee's written
submission dated 12.07.2017 are reproduced as under:-

"Disallowance of Capital Loss of Rs. 164,48.55,840/-

The appellant had made an investment is the shares of Asianet

News P Ltd. [ANNPLJ, the company is a subsidiary company and
engaged in the business of telecasting news. The appellant had
invested in 12,22,44,130/- equity shares for Rs. 122,24,41,300.
The company had incurred losses and the net-worth of the
company was totally eroded

The company ANNPL filed a petition before the High Court of

Bombay for reduction of capital to set off the loss against the paid
up equity.

The court was pleased to grant approval for the scheme and the
capital of the company was reduced to Rs. 99,885/- represented by
9988 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The court also ordered for
payment of Rs. 3,17,83,474 as consideration, which was duly
received by the appellant company.

We give below details of the investment, sale and loss claimed

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 6 of 19

No: of shares invested 12,22,44,130

Value of investment 122,24,41,300
Indexed cost 167,66,39,315
Consideration received 3,17,83,474
Loss claimed 164,48,55,840
The AO has in Para 8 has observed that "the issue of contention
here is whether a reduction of share capital by reducing the
number of shares, without reducing the face value, amounts to a
transfer of capital asset. Further, whether such a reduction
amounts to transfer of rights?

The AO has observed in Para 9 that the share holding pattern

continues to be same and the appellant did not relinquish its
voting rights or extinguish its right in the shares.

Our submission is that

Details of Share Capital of ANNPL

Particulars No. of shares Amount
Opening balance of
149,544,130 1,495,441,300
investment in ANNPL
Purchase of ANNPL Shares
3,806,758 38,067,585
from other Parties
Loss on Extinguishment of
153,340,900 1,533,409,000
Shares
Closing Balance as on 31-
9,988 99,885
03-2014

There is reduction in share capital of ANNPL under capital

reduction scheme. The scheme provides for setting of losses
incurred by the company against its paid up equity share capital.
The courts have ruled that the number of shares shall be reduced,
while the face value of the shares continue to remain at Rs. 10
each fully paid. There is no reduction of face value of the shares
but only a reduction in number of outstanding equity shares. This
would result in value of investment of Jupiter Capital in ANNPL,
reduction in value of such assets is reflected as a loss.

Section 45 is the charging section, Under section 45(1) of the Act,

profits and gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset
effected in the previous year is chargeable to tax.

Section 48 outlines the methodology for computing capital gains.

Existence of a capital asset owned by the assessee

Section 2(14) defined a capital asset. As per the definition capital

asset means property of any kind save certain specified exclusions.
The expression property of any kind is of such wide amplitude so
http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 7 of 19

as to take in tangible and intangible assets of any kind other than

those comprised in the exceptions carved out in the definition
itself, equity shares are covered within the definition of Capital
assets.

Transfer of such assets during the year

The scheme of capital gain taxation pre supposes transfer of capital

asset, the term transfer is defined in an inclusive manner u/s 2(47) of
the Act. Section 2(47) of the act defines transfer to include among
other relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of any rights
contained therein. In the case of the assessee, its investment in Asianet
News Network P Ltd stands reduced. There in an extinguishment of its
shares held in that company. Consequently, the assessee has reduced
its investment value and number of shares held in its financials. The
loss so incurred have been claimed as a capital loss.

The Apex Court has laid down with regard to the meaning of 'transfer'
and scope of Section 2(47) of the Act in Kartikeya V. Sarabhail v.
CIT(1998) 288 ITR 163(SC). It has been laid down in that decision
that, "Section" 2(47) of the Income Tax Act,1961, defines "transfer" in
relation to a capital asset. It is an inclusive definition which, inter
cilia, provides that relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of
any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. It is not
necessary for a capital gain to arise, that there must be a sale of a
capital asset. Sale is only one of the modes of transfer envisaged by
section 2(47) of the Act.

Relinquishment of the asset or extinguishment of any right in it,

which may not amount to a sale, can also be considered as a
transfer and any profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a
capital asset is liable to be taxed under section 45. A company,
under section 100(1) (c) of the Companies Act, 1956, has a right to
reduce the share capital and one of the modes which can be
adopted is to reduce the share capital and one of the modes which
can be adopted is to reduce the face value of the preference shares.

Section 87(2)(c) of the Companies Act, inter alia, provides that

"where the holder of any preference she has a right to vote on any
resolution in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, his
voting right on a poll, as the holder of such share, shall, subject to
the proportion of section 89 and sub section (2) of section 92 be in
the same proportion as the capital paid up in respect of the
preference share bears to the total paid-up equity capital of the
company". Hence, when as a result of the reducing of the face
value of the Share, the share capital is reduced, the right to share
in the distribution of the net assets upon liquidation is extinguished
proportionately to the extent of reduction in the capital. Such
reduction of the right in the capital asset would clearly amount to a
transfer within the meaning of that expression in section 2(47) of
the Income Tax Act,1961.

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 8 of 19

"Section 2(47) of the act provides that relinquishment or

extinguishment of any right in the capital asset amounts to transfer
of a capital asset. In the instant case, the assessee has received
case in lieu of 150 shares and on receipt of that cash, there is
extinguishment of the rights of the assessee in those shares. Same is
one of the modes of transfer envisaged by section 2(47) of the Act.
Extinguishment of the assessee's right is a transfer and any profit
Or gain which arises from such transfer is liable to be taxed, under
section 45 of the Act.

AANPL has huge losses. The fair market value of the AANPL shares is
less than face value. A sale consideration as determined has been
paid.

The Karnataka High Court of DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd

312 ITR 63(Kar) held that cancellation of allotment of shares
leading to forfeiture of share application money on the taxpayer's
failure to deposit call money resulted into short term capital loss.
The court allowed a claim of Capital loss even in absence of
Consideration. The transaction is treated as a transfer.

The Gujarat High Court decision in case of CIT Jayakrishana

Harivallahh das (1998) 231 ITR 108 (Guj) observed that full value of
consideration could be nil.

The Mumbai High Court in case of CIT v Surat Cotton Spinning &
Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd Concurred with the proposition that full value
of consideration could be nil.

It is relevant to quote the observations of Gujarat High Court decision

in case of CIT v Jayakrishna Harivallabha das in the Present Context.

There is, therefore, no reasons why a share holder who in distribution

of assets has, even if, not received any deemed consideration in
satisfaction of his rights and interests in the holding and has thereby
suffered total loss, cannot claim the benefit of setoff or carry forward
losses suffered by him.

Otherwise a startling and unjust situation may arise where the

receipt of even one pulse would enable him claim setoff or carry
forward losses as worked out under section 48, while a shareholder
who is a shade worse off and gets nothing in the event of such total
loss should be denied the effect of section 46(2) read with Sec 71
and 74 of the act and be put to a perpetual loss. Therefore even
where receipt is nil on the date of distribution on the liquidation of
the company, the case of such shareholder will fall u/s 46(2) and the
deemed full value of the consideration for the purpose of sec 48 will
be regarded as nil and on that basis the income chargeable under
the head capital gains has to be computed u/s 48.

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 9 of 19

The Sentiments emerging from the aforesaid observations of High

Court is applicable to the assessee to conclude that even a nil
consideration on capital reduction cannot defeat the computation
mechanism u/s 48.

We also draw your attention to the following judgments:

CIT v G. Narasimhan & other 236 ITR 327 (SC)

Anarkali Sarabhai v CIT 224 ITR 422

Shishir Kumar R Mehta v CIT 154 CTR 70

We also draw your attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of CIT v Grace Collis & others 248 ITR 323 and
Vania Silk Mills P Ltd v CIT 191 ITR 647.

The Hon'ble bench has observed that the definition of transfer clearly
contemplates extinguishment of rights in a capital asset distinct and
independent of such extinguishment consequent upon transfer thereof
The court further observed that the expression "extinguishment of any
right there in" can be extended to mean extinguishment of right
independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. Thus, even
extinguishment of right in a capital asset would amount to transfer
and in the case before us since the assessee 's right got extinguished
proportionately, to the reduction of capital, it would amount to
transfer.

It was held that reduction of capital amount to transfer and

accordingly capital loss was held to be allowable in the following
decision too:

Zyma Laboratories Ltd v Addl. CIT 7 SOT 164 [Mum]

DCIT v M/s Polychem Ltd ITA No: 4212/M/07

Ginners & Presser Ltd v ITO ITA No. 398/M/07 & 4193/M/07.

Further we also wish to bring to your attention that one of the aspects
considered was whether the has received consideration or not. In the
case of the appellant, we state that the appellant had received a
consideration. This fact is conceded in the assessment order itself

We rely on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Addl. CIT
v Mohan Bhai 165 ITR 166 and Sunil Sidhrath Bhai v CIT 156 ITR
509.

We also bring to your attention to the fact that the appellant has in
fact reduced the cost of investments in its books of accounts and has
written down the value to the face value of shares held and owned by
it.

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 10 of 19

We also draw your attention to the provisions of section 47 which

provides for transaction which are not considered as a transfer and
reduction of share capital is not one among them.

Based on the above facts and judicial pronouncements, we pray that

the loss claimed by the appellant be allowed in the interest of justice."

6.3 The assessee has made further detailed written submission vide its
letter dated 25/10/2017, placing reliance on numerous judicial
pronouncements. The judicial pronouncements cited by the appellant
have been duly analysed.

The observations / findings of the AO and the Assessee's detailed

written submissions have been duly perused. The judicial position on
the issue under consideration and the judgments highlighted by the
AO as well as the appellant have been taken into due consideration, in
the given factual matrix of the present case. The issue is accordingly
adjudicated as under:

6.4. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,64,48,55,840/-

as Long Term Capital loss from sale of shares. This loss was
stated to accrue against the reduction in share capital of M/s
Asianet News Pvt. Ltd (ANNPL) effected under a capital
reduction scheme. The AO disagreed with the assessee's claim
of Long Term Capital Loss, contending that, the reduction in
shares of ANNPL, did not result in transfer of capital asset as
envisaged u/s 2(47) of the I.T. Act. The AO come to this
conclusion, in light of the finding that, even though the number
of shares has reduced. the face value as well as the
shareholding pattern remained the same. The assessee on the
other hand, has argued that there was real transfer of asset. as
the scheme resulted in extinguishment / relinquishment of part
of the Assessee's rights, in the shares of ANNPL, and therefore
the transaction fell within the purview of section 2(47) of the
I.T. Act, resulting in consequent claimable Long Term Capital
Loss.

6.5 The core arguments of the appellant in a nutshell are as

follows:
• The Assessee has highlighted the fact that, there is
reduction in share capital of ANNPL under a duly
approved capital reduction scheme. The scheme provides
for setting-off losses incurred by the company against its
paid up equity share capital. It is contended that the
number of shares stood reduced, even while the face
value of the shares continued to remain at Rs. 10 each
fully paid. The assessee claims that since the scheme
resulted in decrease in value of investment of Jupiter
Capital in ANNPL, such reduction in value of assets was
accordingly claimable as a loss.

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 11 of 19

• The Assessee has made reference to the relevant sections

of the I.T. Act. It is explained that, section 45 being the
charging section, under the said section, profits and gains
arising from the transfer of a capital asset affected in the
previous year, was therefore chargeable to tax. It is
further stated that, section 48 outlines the methodology
for computing capital gains. The appellant therefore
claims that, the exercise of reduction of shares
between the assessee and M/s ANNPL. was exigible to
section 45 as well as the section48, involving transfer o&
chargeability.
• The appellant states that, section 2(14) defines a capital
asset. As per the said definition capital asset means
property of any kind save certain specified exclusions.
The appellant submits that, the expression property of
any kind is of such wide amplitude so as to rake in
tangible and intangible assets of any kind other than
those comprised in the exceptions carved out in the
definition itself. It is explained by the assessee that,
equity shares are covered well within the definition of
Capital Assets.
• The Assessee has further contended that, the impugned
transactions of share-reduction constituted 'transfer' as
envisaged in section 2(47) of the I.T. Act. It is explained
that, the scheme of capital gain taxation pre supposes
transfer of capital asset. The term transfer is defined in
an inclusive manner u/s 2(47) of the Act. Section 2(47) of
the Act, defines transfer to include among others,
relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of any rights
contained therein. In the case of the assessee, the
appellant submits that, its investment in Asianet New
Network P Ltd stands reduced. There is thus an
extinguishment of its shares held in that company.
Consequently, the assessee has reduced its investment
value and number of shares held in its financials. The
Assessee therefore contends that, the loss so incurred
have been correctly claimed as a capital loss.

• Reliance has also been placed on following judicial

decisions:

Kartikeya V. Sarabhail v. CIT (1998) 1 DTC 219 (SC); (1997)

288 ITR 163(SC);
DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd 312 ITR 63 (Kar);
CIT v Surat Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd;
CIT v Jayakrishna Harivallabha das (1998) 231 ITR 108 (Guj);

6.6 Having considered the rival submissions and the judicial position
in light of the factual matrix of the present case. I do not find myself in
agreement with the Assessee's case in view of the following
discussion and for reasons summarized as under:
http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 12 of 19

(i) It is seen from the impugned order of the AO that, the

contentions of the Assessee on both questions of fact as well as the
judicial position have been adequately addressed. The AO after
having analysed the share-reduction scheme, and the shareholding
pattern (prior and subsequent) to this event, concluded that, there
was no effective share-reduction, as envisaged in the section 2(47)
of the I.T. Act. The cases relied upon by the appellant have also
been distinguished by the AO, in her impugned-order.

(ii) The factual position and the applicability of the

judicial decisions in the present case, clearly reveals that
the Assessee's claim of capital loss, is not acceptable in
view of certain crucial questions, emerging for
consideration in the present case. The AO has analysed the
Assessee's shareholding pattern, in the impugned order, which
has been perused. A comparative-analysis of the opening /
closing balances of ANNPL shares and the consequent
reduction in numbers / face value and the percentage ratio of
share-holding, reveals a clear position that, there was no
effective transfer, resulting in Long Term Capital Loss. It
would be appropriate in this regard, to extract the chart, from
the impugned-order, which reveals the position as under:

Particulars No. of shares Amount

Opening balance
of 149544130 1495441300
investment in ANNPL
Purchase of ANNPL shares
3806758 38067585
from other parties
Loss on extinguishment of 1533409000
shares 153340900

Closing balance as on
9988 99885
31.03.2014

Period Total Number Number of Value per % of holding

of shares shares held by share (Rs.)
the Assessee
Prior to 153505750 153340900 10 99.88%
reduction
After reduction 10000 9988 9988 99.88%.

(iii)From the analysis of the above charts, it clearly emerges, that

there was no effective transfer, which could result in any real
Long Term Capital Loss as claimed by the appellant in the present
case. It transpires that the appellant company invested in total
equity share of Rs. 153340900/- at face value of (Rs. 10) on
http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 13 of 19

different dates, in its subsidiary company ANNPL). The total

number of shares of ANNPL was 153505750 out of which the
assessee's shareholding was 99.88%. Pursuant to the share
reduction scheme there was a reduction in share capital of
ANNPL form 153340900 to 10000 and thus the shares of the
Assessee were reduced from 153505750 to 9988. The face value of
the shares-reduced remained unchanged at Rs. 10, even after the
reduction. The shareholding ratio of the assessee company also
remained constant even after implementation of the share-
reduction scheme. This percentage continued to be at the previous
shareholding figures of 99.88%.

(iv) It is apparent from the aforesaid-comparative analysis that,

the total shareholding of the assessee's company remaining the
same, did not effectively result in any relinquishment or
extinguishment of the appellant’s rights in the aforecited shares in
ANNPL. In these facts & circumstances, the AO has held that
there was no question of transfer of rights and that. the scheme
only resulted in extinguishment of number of shares and not the
relinquishment in the real degree / or quantum of the rights, of the
shareholding company, as a whole. The AO has reasoned that, for
a validly acceptable 'transfer' as per the letter and spirit of section
2(47), the transaction ought to invariably involve the sale,
exchange or relinquishment of the asset; or the extinguishment of
any rights therein; or the compulsory acquisition thereof under
any law; / others. The assessee's does not squarely fall into any
one out of these conditionalities.

• Having considered the peculiar factual position and in

background of the requirements of law laid down in section 2(47),
it is clear that. Any extinguishment of rights would involve parting
I sale of percentage of shares to another party or the divesting of
rights therein, In the present case, the appellant has neither parted
with nor sold the shares, as there was no change in the overall
percentage of total-shareholding which remained at 99.88% i.e.
the same percentage held prior to the implementation of the share-
reduction scheme. There is also no extinguishment of rights in as
much as the reduction was only in the number of shares and not
the face value. I am in agreement with the AO in her finding that.
there is no real-transfer as envisaged under section 2(47) as there
was no effective relinquishment / extinguishment of rights as
claimed by the appellant.

In background of above detailed discussion and facts &

circumstances of the case. I am of the considered view that the
Long Term Capital Loss claimed does not fall within the purview
of capital-gains provisions envisaged under the I.T. Act. The AO's
action therefore cannot be interfered with, on this account.

7. The assessee in its written submission from time to time before

the AO and during the current appeal-proceeding has placed

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 14 of 19

reliance on certain judicial pronouncements, which have been

duly perused. With due regard to the ratio of the judgments as
invoked, it is necessary to appreciate that the peculiar facts &
circumstances obtaining in each case, are of paramount
importance; for the applicability of the same. In this view of the
matter, I find clear distinguishing factors, in the present case,
which renders the said judgments inapplicable to the factual-
matrix of the present case under consideration.

7.1 The assessee, in its written submission has placed reliance on

the ratio of judgment in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhail - 1997
(9) TMI -2-(SC). The Assessee has made elaborate arguments in
its written submission dated 25/10/2017 contending that, the
scheme of capital reduction in shares of ANNPL
(Assessee'ssubsidiary) fell within the purview of definition of
transfer envisaged u/s 2(47) of the 1.T. Act, and as laid down in
the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in Kartikeya V. Sarabhail v. CIT
(1998) 1 DTC 219 (SC) (1997). The assessee holds that, as a
consequence of the share-reduction scheme, the assessee has
reduced its investment value and number of shares, held, resulting
in a valid capital loss. The assessee has reiterated that, in the
judgment (cited supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down with
regard to the meaning of transfer and scope of section 2(47) that,
‘transfer' in relation to a capital asset, was an inclusive-definition,
which inter-alia provides that 'relinquishment of an asset or
extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer.
According to the appellant, it is not therefore necessary for a
capital gain, to arise, that there must be sale of a capital asset, as
sale is only one such mode of transfer.

The Assessee's contentions have been duly considered. The

facts of the present case have been elaborated in the
preceding paras. The distinguishing factors have been clearly
brought out, by way of a comparative analysis of the share-
holding pattern as extracted as para-6.6 above. In the
peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case even
though there was a certain reduction in 'number of shares'
yet there was no effective reduction in the face value of the
shares; and more importantly the overall share-holding
percentage of the assessee company in M/s ANNPL remained
at 99.88% being the same figure of shareholding, prior to the
implementation of the impugned-scheme. In this factual
background there was no effective transfer or extinguishment
of rights, as envisaged in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court (cited supra). In these facts & circumstances,
the said ratio does not squarely apply to the case under
adjudication.

7.2 The Assessee has further drawn attention to the decisions of

Gujarat High Court in the cases of CIT v Jayakrishna
Harivallabha das (1998) 231 ITR 108 (Guj); and Mumbai High

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 15 of 19

Court in the case of CIT v Surat Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills
Pvt. Ltd; wherein it was observed that in a scheme of similar
transfer full value of consideration could be nil. contending
that the assessee's case involved real transfer u/s 2(47) of
the I.T. Act. The assessee has also referred to the judgments
of Vania Silk Mills P Ltd v CIT 191 ITR 647and that of
DCIT v BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd 312 ITR 63 (Kar).

The assessee's core contention raised in this regard is that

irrespective of the amount of consideration involved (even if
Nil) or the accrual of either positive or negative income, the
capital gains / loss provision would be attracted, as certain
element of transfer extinguishment of assets / rights has
occurred in the process of such transfer. It is the assessee's
case therefore, that as a result of the arrangement under the
share-reduction scheme under consideration; the resultant
capital loss has to be allowed, as the extinguishment of rights
by virtue of share reduction. amounts to transfer as described
and incorporated in the above stated judgments. The ratio of
judgments invoked by the appellant no doubt relates to the
issue of capital gains 1 loss and the wide-meaning of transfer
ascribed to the section 2(47). There is no specific dispute
with the findings and observations of the Hon'ble court on
this aspect of the matter. However, the clear distinguishing
factors in the present case are whether the same would
squarely apply to what is essentially, in the present case. an
intra-group arrangement of reduction of shares between the
appellant and its own subsidiary. It is abundantly clear from
the preceding discussion, that, the final share holding ratio
remained unchanged after the implementation of the share of
reduction scheme. The number of shares was reduced but,
without tangible reduction in face value or the total-
percentage of shareholding held even after such reduction in
numbers. These crucial questions therefore remain
unaddressed in the present situation and do not correspond
to the facts & circumstances in which the above cited
judgments were passed. It is therefore held that, the said judicial
pronouncements do not squarely apply to the case presently, under
consideration.

7.3. The AO in the impugned-order has placed reliance on the

ratio of judgments in the case of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd V
ACIT (TS-580-ITAT-2011) (Mum) and CIT vs. RasiklalManeklal
(HUF) 1989 (3) TMI 3- (SC).

• The assessee in its written submission dated 25/10/2017 has

attempted to distinguish the aforesaid case of Bennet
Coleman & Co. Ltd., by relying on the observations of the
dissenting member of the 3-Member Bench. Having perused
the ratio of the judgment, I am agreeable to the contention of
the AO that, the appellant's case under adjudication is fairly-

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 16 of 19

covered to a large extent, in view of the similarity of the facts

& circumstances under consideration in the present case. The
core arguments of the revenue in this case (Bennet Coleman
& Co. Ltd.) was that the scheme approved by the Hon'ble
High Court in that case was on account of reduction of face
value of shares for Rs. 10 to Rs. 5 and later consolidating 2
of the resultant shares into 1 equity share and to issue a fresh
share of Rs. 10 each. The revenue had raised a similar
ground that no shares were parted-away to anyone else and
that even post-conversion, the cost of acquisition of shares
had to be considered with reference to the cost of original
shares. This is quite akin to the present case, where even
after the share-reduction, (between the group entities), the
effective shareholding percentage remained the same. The
assessee's primary argument or distinguishment from the
present case, is that a certain consideration was passed on to
M/s ANNPL, as against the case of Bennett Coleman & Co.
Ltd. This argument however, does not hold ground in view of
the fact that the questions of share-valuation and adequacy of
consideration have not been examined by the AO, even-
though, the scheme was essentially an intra-group
arrangement between the subsidiary and a holding company.
In this view of the matter, the AO's reliance on the judgment
of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. (cited supra) is found to be
appropriate and tenable, in the given facts & circumstances.
In the case of Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. (cited supra) the
Hon'ble Court agreed with the revenue's contention that there
was no real-transfer (in terms of section 2(47)) and that one
set of shares were simply exchanged by another set of shares,
while the total shareholding percentage prior / subsequent to
the scheme of reduction remained the same.

• The AO has also pointed towards the case of DT Vs.

RasiklalManeklal (HUF) 1989 (3) TMI 3- (SC). In the said
case of Hon'ble Apex court held that, in the event of exchange
of one property against another (between two entities). the
property in question continued to remain in existence.

In background of the above detailed discussion and facts &

circumstances of the present case and in light of the judicial
position on the issue at hand. I am in agreement with the AO's
action. The disallowance of Rs. 1,64,48.55.840/- and consequent
Long Term Capital Loss is accordingly upheld. The Assessee's
grounds of appeal in this regard are therefore disallowed.”
5. We find that in Para 7.2 of the order of CIT(A), it is noted by CIT(A) that
distinguishing factors for which the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai Vs. CIT (supra) is not
applicable are noted in Para 6.6 of his order. In Para 6.6 of the order of
CIT(A), it is noted by CIT(A) that as per scheme of reduction of share capital
http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 17 of 19

approved by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, although total number of shares

held by the assessee in M/s. Asianet New Network P Ltd. (ANNPL) has
been reduced from 153340900 number of shares to 9988 number of shares
but the percentage of holding remains unchanged which was noted to be
99.88% prior to reduction as well as after reduction. Because of this, ld. CIT
(A) came to the conclusion that though there was a certain reduction in
number of shares yet there was no effective reduction in the face value of
the shares and more importantly, ratio of share holding of the assessee
company in ANNPL remains 99.88% at the same figure of share holding
prior to the implementation of the share-reduction scheme approved by
Hon’ble Bombay High Court. He has held that in this factual background,
there was no effective transfer or extinguishment of rights as envisaged in
the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court. On this basis, he held that this
judgment is not applicable in the present case. Now we reproduce the
relevant Para i.e. Para no. 5 from this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court
rendered in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai Vs. CIT (supra). The same is
as under.
“5. Sec. 2(47) which is an inclusive definition, inter alia, provides that
relinquishment of an asset or extinguishment of any right there in
amounts to a transfer of a capital asset. While, it is no doubt true that
the appellant continues to remain a shareholder of the company even
with the reduction of a share capital but it is not possible to accept the
contention that there has been no extinguishment of any part of his
right as a shareholder qua the company. It is not necessary that for a
capital gain to arise that there must be a sale of a capital asset. Sale is
only one of the modes of transfer envisaged by s. 2(47) of the Act.
Relinquishment of the asset or the extinguishment of any right in it,
which may not amount to sale, can also be considered as a transfer
and any profit or gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset
is liable to be taxed under s. 45 of the Act.

When, as a result of the reducing of the face value of the share, the
share capital is reduced, the right of the preference shareholder to the
dividend or his share capital and the right to share in the distribution
of the net assets upon liquidation is extinguished proportionately to
the extent of reduction in the capital. Whereas the appellant had a
right to dividend on a capital of Rs. 500 per share that stood reduced
to his receiving dividend on Rs. 50 per share. Similarly, if the
liquidation was to take place whereas he originally had a right to Rs.
500 per share, now his right stood reduced to receiving Rs. 50 per
share only. Even though the appellant continues to remain a
shareholder his right as a holder of those shares clearly stands

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 18 of 19

reduced with the reduction in the share capital.”

6. From this Para of this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is seen that it is
held by Hon’ble Apex Court in this case that section 2(47) is containing an
inclusive definition and inter alia, it provides that relinquishment of an asset
or extinguishment of any right there in amounts to a transfer of a capital
asset. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also noted that it is no doubt true that
the assessee continues to remain a shareholder of the company even after
the reduction of a share capital but it is not possible to accept the contention
that there has been no extinguishment of any part of his right as a
shareholder qua the company. In that case, the assessee has purchased
90 non-cumulative preference shares, each of the face value of Rs. 1,000 at
a price of Rs. 420 per share and subsequently, the company paid Rs. 500
per share upon a reduction of the share capital of the company by way of
reducing the face value of each share from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500. Under
these facts, it was held that this amounts to transfer in view of the provisions
of section 2(47) of IT Act. In the present case, the face value per share
remains same i.e. Rs. 10 per share before reduction of share capital and
after reduction of share capital but the total number of shares has been
reduced from 153505750 to 10000 and out of this, the present assessee
was holding prior to reduction 153340900 shares and after reduction 9988
shares. In addition to this reduction in number of shares held by the
assessee company in ANNPL, the assessee received an amount of Rs.
3,17,83,474/- from ANNPL. Hence it is seen that in the facts of present
case, on account of reduction in number of shares held by the assessee
company in ANNPL, the assessee has extinguished its right of 153340900
shares and in lieu thereof, the assessee received 9988 shares at Rs. 10/-
each along with an amount of Rs. 3,17,83,474/-. As per this judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Kartikeya V. Sarabhai Vs. CIT
(supra), there is no reference to the percentage of share holding prior to
reduction of share capital and after reduction of share capital and hence, in
our considered opinion, the basis adopted by the CIT(A) to hold that this
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is not applicable in the present case is not
proper and in our considered opinion, this is not proper. In our considered

http://itatonline.org
 ITA No.445/Bang/2018
Page 19 of 19

opinion, in the facts of present case, this judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is
squarely applicable and by respectfully following this judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court, we hold that the assessee’s claim for capital loss on account of
reduction in share capital in ANNPL is allowable. We hold accordingly.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption
page.

Sd/- Sd/-
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA)
Judicial Member Accountant Member

Bangalore,
Dated, the 29th November, 2018.
/MS/

Copy to:
1. Appellant 4. CIT(A)
2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
3. CIT 6. Guard file

By order

Assistant Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore.

http://itatonline.org