The Supreme Court has put an end to a rampant tax dodge, going on for decades, where land parcels, properties, and redevelopment rights worth crores changed hands through partnership firms. Spurred by the apex court’s stand, the Income tax (I-T) department may now turn their glare on past property deals as well.
The trick used till now was holding real estate assets in a partnership structure, revaluing the properties to current market price, bringing in new partners who infused cash in the firm, and the old partners then withdrawing the funds that comes in after their capital accounts were credited to the extent of their share in the profits of the firm as is as allowed in a partnership.
No stamp duty, capital gains and income tax were paid as is required in a plain sale and transfer of property. The partnership entity, through which funds flowed in and out, let a new set of partners control the property.
In a ruling last week, the apex court has held that such revaluation surplus would be taxable in the hands of the firm as transfer and would be subjected to ‘capital gains tax’. Thus, with the firm facing a tax liability post revaluation, the old partners — the ultimate owners of the property or the `sellers’ — can no longer escape tax while taking out funds chipped in by new partners (the ‘buyers’) joining the firm.
Relooking at the Law
In challenging the tax department’s stand, the assesse had argued that the amount credited on revaluation to the capital accounts of partners was only a notional or book entry. It also said that Section 45(4) of the I T Act dealing with tax on gains of a firm or association or body following transfer of capital assets would not be applicable unless the partnership firm in question is dissolved.
The Supreme Court rejected this, with the case turning in favour of the tax office on the back of two words “or otherwise” that were introduced when the law was amended in ’87. According to Section 45(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….”. The apex court in its ruling said,“ After detailed analysis of Section 45(4), it is observed and held that the word ‘otherwise’ used in Section 45(4) takes into its sweep not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner.
Source: economictimes.com
***
Don’t miss the next GST Update / Article / Judicial pronouncement
Subscribe to our newsletter from FREE to stay updated on GST Law
Resolve your GST queries from national level experts on GST free of cost
TW Editorial Team comprises of team of experienced Chartered Accountants and Advocates devoted to spread the knowledge of GST amongst the various stakeholders.
