INTERNATIONAL LEGAL NEWS

The Bullet"iln" Volume 6 Issue 1   March 18, 2007
HOME
topics
iln news
member articles
member news
new member firms
iln news
2006 European Regional Meeting - Geneva
2006 Regional Meeting of the Americas - The Bahamas
2007 Asia Pacific Regional Meeting - New Delhi
ILN Member Kochanski Brudkowski & Partners Benefits From Lefèvre Pelletier & associés Referral
new member firms
ILN Welcomes New Firm in Delaware
ILN Welcomes New Firm in Denmark
ILN Welcomes New Firm in Nevada
ILN Welcomes New Firm in South Korea
member news
Fladgates achieves success in Legal 500 and Chambers directories
Howard Rice Recognized as One of the Three Top Litigation Firms in Northern California
ILN Member Jukka Peltonen of Peltonen, Ruokonen & Itainen Received Two Prizes From the Finnish Bar
Lommen Nelson has eight Super Lawyers this year!
McDonald Hopkins Co., Acquires Chicago Firm
member articles
International arbitration : the ICSID Convention : a convenient solution for companies in conflict with states.
The New Czech Labour Code
China Issues New M&A Regulations
Taxation Aspects on M&As in Indian Jurisdiction
Has a Letter of Intent binding effects, according to Brazilian Law?
Lucrative Set-Aside and Sole Source Federal Contracting Opportunities Exist for Small Businesses
Options to Achieve Trade Mark Rights in Europe for Asian Companies and Citizens
Acquisition of Italian On-going Business within the frame of Group to Group Cross-Border Acqisition Projects
subscibe
Email Address:

First Name:

Last Name:

Company:

Phone Number:

Taxation Aspects on M&As in Indian Jurisdiction
Singhania & Partners, India


INCOME TAX ASPECTS OF AMALGAMETIONS

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Mergers and acquisitions are an important tool of economic development and every effort should be made to incentivise the merger process in the country. Fiscal statutes form an important means of economic development by providing benefits to the concerned businesses. Large scale mergers are occurring at a fast pace within and outside the country. In this regard the income tax legislation in India is quite development oriented for domestic companies going in for merger or amalgamation and acquisition. In India, the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the primary legislation dealing with taxability of income arising in the hands of an individual or business entity. An important question that arises here is: What are the benefits available under the Income Tax Act, 1961, to companies going in for merger or acquisition. These benefits are available in the form of allowable deductions from the income in the hands of an individual or companies. They apply equally to companies going in for merger or acquisition in India. The focus of the present paper is to highlight the deductions available to companies going in for mergers. A firm can achieve growth in several ways. It can grow internally or externally. Internal Growth can be achieved if a firm expands its existing activities by up scaling capacities or establishing new firm with fresh investments in existing product markets. Where a firm grows internally, it can face problems with regard to the size of the existing market or product, no growth potential in future or government restriction on capacity enhancement. The income tax legislation acts as an aid to external growth by providing deductions under its provisions. Fiscal statutes are a significant source of economic development and create space for growth of industrial activities within the country. Therefore a legal metamorphosis occurs when a merger takes place. The Income Ta Act, 1961 contains special provisions so as to minimize the ambiguities in ascertaining the tax liabilities of the merged entity. In India, the primary fiscal legislation dealing with mergers is concerned solely with the amalgamation o companies and des not refer to amalgamation between other forms of legal entities like  partnership firms or sole proprietorship. The following type of mergers are envisaged: merger of one or more company with some other company and the merger of to or more companies form a new company.

 

Though the income tax deductions stand discontinued at any time, but being part of legislations point towards their recurring nature and availability at any time for a company.[1]   

 

2. TAX BENEFITS OR ASPECTS OF AMALGAMATION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961:

 

2.1 DEFINITION OF AMALGAMATION UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961:

Section 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 defines the term “amalgamation” as follows :

 

“amalgamation”, in relation to companies, means the merger of one or more companies with another company or the merger of two or more company (the company or companies which so merge being referred to as the amalgamating company or companies and the company with which they merge or which is formed as a result of the merger, as the amalgamated company) in such a manner that

 

(i)     all the property of the amalgamating company or companies immediately before the amalgamation becomes the property of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation ;

(ii)   all the liabilities of the amalgamating company or companies immediately before the amalgamation become the liabilities of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation;

(iii)  shareholders holding not less than 14(three-fourths) in value of the shares in the amalgamating company or companies (there than shares already held therein immediately before the amalgamation by, or by a nominee for, the amalgamation by, or by a nominee for, the amalgamated company or its subsidiary) become shareholders of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation,

 

otherwise than as a result of the acquisition of the property of one company by another company pursuant to the purchase of such property by the other company or as a result of the distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of the first-mentioned company.”[2]

 

It will be noticed that the definition uses the expression “amalgamating company” and “amalgamated company” to refer to the expressions “transferor company” and “transferee company” respectively.[3] An important issue that arises in the case of amalgamation is that of capital gains arising from the transfer of shares or any kind of capital gains arising with respect to taxation of the capital gains.[4] However the company may also stand to lose in cases of amalgamation as mergers in the Indian context are viewed as a tax planning measure.[5] The deductibility has to be seen in the hands of the transferee company.[6]

 

To constitute “amalgamation” under the Income Tax Act, there must be satisfied the three conditions specified clauses(i) , (ii) and (ii) of the definition.

 

2.2 THE FOLLOWING BENEFITS OR PROVISIONS ARE THERE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR CASES OF AMALGAMATION OF COMPANIES:

 

·       2.2.1 INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE:

Investment allowance in the Act has been inserted in place of Development Rebate. The purpose of this allowance is to provide for deduction on any purchases made in the form of ship, aircraft, machinery, plant. The rate of investment allowance is 25% of the actual cost of the ship, aircraft, machinery or plant. Therefore it could be termed as a deduction on the investment made by the person which is allowed to him at the time of calculation of his taxable income. The section provides for exemption from application of the provision in certain cases mentioned in the Section itself. Sub section (2) of the section assumes importance in light of the fact that it provides for the meaning to be given to the words ship, aircraft and plant and machinery by stating their purposes or the object with which it is to be used. For example, clause (b) of sub section (2) provides for the purposes of installation of plant or machinery which may be generation of electricity or distribution of the same, in a small scale industrial undertaking for the manufacture of any article, for the purposes of business of construction, manufacture or production of any article. Sub section (5) of the section provides for disallowance of the investment allowance in certain circumstances.[7] The purpose of creation of an investment allowance is the creation of a reserve called the Investment Allowance Reserved Account for the purposes of acquiring new ship or aircraft or machinery and plant, and for other purposes of business of the undertaking except for distribution of dividends, profits or remittances outside India as profits. Sub section (6) stipulates conditions to be followed in case of an amalgamation and the amalgamated company is supposed to take over the mantle of the maintenance and creation of the reserve for the aforesaid utilization in the business.  

 

The term manufacture in the provision is to be understood in the manner concerning production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving such materials new forms, qualities or combinations whether by hand, labour or machines and if the change made in the article results in a new and different article then it would amount to manufacturing activity.

 

CURRENT STATUS OF THE BENEFIT: Notification dated 19 March 1990 was issued to discontinue investment allowance from the assessment year 1991-92.

 

·       2.2.2. DEVELOPMENT REBATE:

This rebate is granted at varying rates, in respect of ships, machinery and plant provided:

I the machinery or plant is not an office appliance, or a road transport vehicle.

II it is not installed in any office premises.

III the asset is new.

IV it is owned by the assessee.

V it is wholly used for the purposes of the assessee’s business.

VI the particulars prescribed for the purpose of depreciation allowance have been furnished.

VII a development rebate reserve is created and the asset is not transferred for eight years as provided in s34(3).

 

Sub section (3) provides for cases in which amalgamation of companies occurs and it says that the amalgamated company shall continue to fulfill the conditions mentioned in sub section (3) of section 34 in respect of the reserve created by the amalgamating company and in respect of the period within which the ship, machinery or plant shall not be sold or otherwise transferred and accordingly provides for any default. The same sub section provides for the balance amount of the development rebate to be allowed to the amalgamated company or the new entity.

 

The section further provides for the fulfillment of certain conditions for the allowance of development rebate which says that development rebate shall be allowed in respect of a ship, machinery or plant installed on or after 1 Jan 1958, s34(3) enacts that development rebate should be allowed only if the following conditions are fulfilled which are as follows:

(i)    An amount equal to 75% of the development rebate to be actually allowed should be debited to the P&L A/c and should be credited to a reserve account. The reserve so created is utilized for a period of eight years.

(ii)  For distribution by way of dividends or profits.

(iii) For remittance outside India as profits.

(iv) For any other purpose which is not a purpose of the business of the undertaking.

 

The clause requires to maintain a reserve of the value of 75% of the development rebate actually allowed.

 

CASE OF AMALGAMATION: The right to development rebate would be lost even if a transfer of the asset is affected within eight years merely as a step in business reorganization or expansion. Only in two cases of business reorganization is the bar against transfer of assets removed ie: when the two companies amalgamate and when a firm is succeeded by a company. But this benefit is available only when the amalgamation takes place as per the conditions laid down in s 2(1B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

 

CURRENT STATUS OF DEVELOPMENT REBATE: The development rebate has been discontinued from 31 May 1977 and at present stands discontinued.

 

 

 

·       2.2.3.DEVELOPMENT ALLOWANCE:

Under section 33 A, an assessee who is carrying on the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India is entitled to a deduction while  computing his profits by way of development allowance with reference to the actual cost of planting tea bushes.  Here the actual cost planting comprises the cost of planting and replanting and the cost of upkeep thereof, for the previous year in which the land has been prepared for planting and the three succeeding years.[8] This benefit of deduction is available under the current legal provision to companies carrying on similar kind of business and going in for amalgamation. The section is applicable to an assessee carrying on the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India. The allowance is available only if the assessee grows and manufactures tea in the country. Allowance is granted under this section at the following rates:

I.      50% of the actual cost of planting tea bushes, where such tea bushes are planted on a land and not planted with any other tea bushes planted earlier (such cost being incurred between 1 Apr 1965 and 31 Mar 1990).

II.    30% of the actual cost of planting tea bushes where tea bushes are planted in replacement of tea bushes that have died or have become permanently useless on any land already planted (such cost being incurred between 1 Apr 1965 and 31 Mar 1970).

 

 

Sub section (5) provides that all the conditions relating to creation and maintenance of reserve and sale and otherwise transfer of the land should be fulfilled by the amalgamated company just as they would have been fulfilled by the amalgamating company.

 

·       2.2.4. EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH:

According to section 35(5), where, in a scheme of amalgamation, the amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers to the amalgamated company (being an Indian company) any asset representing expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research[9] - 

(i)    the amalgamating company shall  not be allowed the deduction under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (2); and

(ii)  the provisions of this section shall, as far as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company if the latter had not so sold or otherwise transferred the asset

 

The Madras High Court held in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd v CIT[10] that, after the Research Centre was taken over by the assessee, entire actual expenditure incurred by assessee was allowable, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing proportionate expenditure. The research, for the purposes of the present section, need not necessarily be related to present manufacturing activity. It was held in CIT v National Rayon Corporation Ltd.[11] that, ‘the expression “related to business” does not mean related to present manufacturing activities of the assessee. In this case assess was all along using imported wood pulp for the manufacture of rayon incurred expenditure on research for making pulp out of bamboo since it proposed to set up a plant for making bamboo pulp.  The expenditure on such research could not be disallowed because it did not relate to the present manufacturing activity of the assessee.

 

2.2.5. EXPENDITURE ON ACQUISITION OF PATENT RIGHTS OR COPYRIGHTS:

Section 35 A of the Income Tax Act deals with expenditure on acquisition of patent rights or copyrights.  According to its sub-section (1), in respect of any expenditure of a capital nature incurred after the 28th day of February, 1966 but before the 1st day of April, 1998, on the acquisition of patent rights or copyrights, used for the purposes of the business, there shall, be allowed for each of the relevant previous year, a deduction equal to the appropriate fraction of the amount of such expenditure. Sub-section (6) of this section provides that, where, in a  scheme of amalgamation, the amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers the rights to the amalgamated company (being an Indian company),

 

(i)    the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall not apply in the case of the amalgamating company ; and

(ii)  the provisions of this section shall, as for as may be, apply to the amalgamated company as they would have applied to the amalgamating company if the latter had not so sold or otherwise transferred the rights.

Sub-section (6) was inserted in section 35(A) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1967, to provide deduction to amalgamated companies.  The scope of its insertion is elaborated in the following extract of the circular No 5-P, dated 9.10.1997, which read as under:

 

“Where the amalgamating company sell or otherwise transfers to the amalgamated company (being an Indian Company) any capital assets used by it for scientific research related to its business or any capital asset of the nature of patent right or copyrights or any capital assets used for promoting family planning amount its employee, the amalgamated company will be entitled to amortize the capital cost of such assets against its profits under the relevant provision of the Income Tax Act, viz., sections 35, 35A and 36 (1) (ix), in the same manner and to the same extent as the amalgamating company would have been, if it had not sold or transferred the asset to the  amalgamating company will not be entitled to any of the terminal benefits under the provisions of section 35, 35 A and 36 9i) (ix).”[12]

 

Where an assessee has purchased patent rights or copyrights, he is entitled to a deduction under section 35 A for a period of 14 years in equal installments.  If during such period the assessee merges with another company, the amalgamated company would then have the right to claim the unexpired installment as a deduction from its total income.  However, where the whole or any part of the right are sold by the amalgamated company after amalgamation and the sale proceeds exceeds the amount of the cost of acquisition of the asset which remains unallowed as deduction, the excess amount would be chargeable to income-tax in the hands of  the amalgamated company.  If the sale price even exceeds the cost of acquisition, the difference between such price and the cost would be the capital gains which would be taxed in the hands of the amalgamated company.

 

2.2.6. AMORTISATION OF CERTAIN PRELIMINARY EXPENSES:

Section 35D of the Income Tax Act deals with amortization of certain preliminary expenses.  According to its sub-section (1), where an assessee being an Indian Company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, incurs, after the 31st day of March, 1970, any expenditure specified in sub-section (2)

(i)    before the commencement of his business, or

(ii)  after the  commencement of his business, in connection with the extension of his industrial undertaking or in connection with his setting up a new industrial unit,

 

the assessee shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of the ten successive previous years beginning with the previous year in which the business commences or, as the case may be, the previous year in which the extension of the industrial undertaking is completed or the new industrial unit commences production or operation. The section grants deduction in respect of expenditure which may otherwise be disallowed as an expenditure of a capital nature. This implies that expenses of a capital nature which are generally disallowable as deductions at the time of calculation of taxable income, may be allowed by virtue of this section of the Act. The expenditure may be incurred in respect of any of the following:

(i)    preparation of feasibility report.

(ii)  preparation of project report.

(iii) conducting  market survey or any other survey necessary for the business of the assessee.

(iv) engineering services relating to the business of the assessee.

(v)  legal charges for drafting any agreement between the assessee and any other person for any purpose relating to the setting up or conduct of the business of the assessee.

(vi) where the assessee is a company, also expenditure, by way of legal charges for drafting the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company.

(vii)        On printing of the Memorandum and Articles of Association.

(viii)       By way of fees for registering the company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.

(ix) in connection with the issue, for public subscription, of shares in or debentures of the company, being underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of the prospectus.

(x)  such other items of expenditure (not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provision of this Act) as may be prescribed.

 

 

Section 35D is an enabling provision which enables an assessee to amortize w.e.f. assessment year 1999-2000 its  preliminary expenses incurred after 31.3.1998 by an Indian Company or a person resident in India.  The expenses can be amortized in five equal installments for five successive previous years i.e one fifth of the expenditure shall be allowed as deduction, for a period of five successive previous years. And the aggregate amount of the preliminary expense incurred after 31.3.98 should not exceed 5% of the cost of project and in case of a company as its option, 5% of the capital employed.  However, if it exceeds 5% then the expenditure shall be limited to 5% of the cost of project. This certainly depends on a case to case basis.[13] 

 

2.2.7. AMORTISATION OF EXPENDITURE IN CASE OF AMALGAMATION OR DEMERGER:

Section 35DD has been inserted in the Income Tax Act w.e.f 1 April, 2000 by the Finance Act, 1999 to provide for amortization of expenditure in case of amalgamation and demerger. It provides that, where an assessee, being an Indian company, incurs any expenditure, on or after the 1st day of April, 1999, wholly and exclusively for the purposes of amalgamation or demerger of an undertaking , the assessee shall be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to one-fifth of such expenditure for each of the five successive previous years beginning with the  previous year in which the amalgamation or demerger takes place. However, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure mentioned in sub-section (1) under any other provision of this Act. According to sub-section (1) of section 35DD, any expenditure incurred in connection with amalgamation or demerger of any undertaking is allowable in five equal installments over a period of five years beginning with the year of amalgamation or demerger.  However, following conditions need to be fulfilled:

(i)  The entity making the expenditure shall be an Indian company

(ii) The expenditure shall be incurred on or after 1-4-1999.

 

Further, no deduction shall be allowed under any other provisions of the Act, as per sub-section (2) of section 35DD.

 

2.2.8. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR COMPUTATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN ASSETS:

Section 43C of the Income Tax Act provides that, where an asset, which become the property of an amalgamated company under a scheme of amalgamation, is sold after the 29th February, 1998, be the amalgamated company as stock-in-trade of the business carried on by it, the cost of acquisition of that asset to the amalgamated company in computing the profits and gains from the sale such asset be the cost of acquisition of that asset to the amalgamating company, as increased by the cost, if and, of any improvement made to it and the expenditure, if any, incurred, wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer by the amalgamating company. This means that in case where an amalgamation occurs, the cost of an asset to be ascertained for the purposes of taxing the gains or profits made from the sale of such asset, is to be taken at the same value which might have been incurred by the amalgamating company and any expenditure made by the amalgamated company on the asset should be taken into consideration while providing for deduction to the amalgamated company.

 

 

 

2.2.9. CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF ACCUMULATED LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE IN AMALGAMATION:

This section constitutes an exception to the general rule that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance of the previous owner of a business cannot be carried forward and set off by the successor and that a business loss can be carried forward and set off the business profits of a subsequent year only by the assessee who has incurred the loss. Where a company owning an industrial undertaking, ship, hotel or a banking company merges into another company this section permits set off if certain conditions are fulfilled. Theses conditions are as follows:

(i)    The amalgamated company shall continuously hold at least three fourths in value of the assets of the amalgamating company for a minimum period of five years from the date of amalgamation.

(ii)  The amalgamated company shall continue the business of the amalgamating company for at least five years from the date of amalgamation.

(iii) It should fulfill other conditions notified by the Central Government to ensure the revival of the business of the amalgamating company or to ensure that the amalgamation is for genuine business purpose.

 

After the amendment made by the Finance Act of 2003 with effect from 1 Apr 2004, two further conditions need to be fulfilled which are as:[14]

(i)    it should have been engaged in the business for at least three years during which the accumulated loss ha occurred or the unabsorbed depreciation had accumulated.

(ii)  It should have continuously held on the date of amalgamation at least three fourths of the book value of the fixed assets, which it held two years prior to the date of amalgamation.

 

Under the old provisions, in a case of amalgamation, shareholders holding not less than nine-tenths in value of shares in the amalgamating company were required to become shareholders of the amalgamated company.  This condition has been relaxed.  After the Amendment vide Finance Act, 1999, shareholders holding tree-fourths in value of the share shall be required to become shareholders of the amalgamated company. The provisions of section 72A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, have been on the statute book since 1977.  The main object of enacting this provision was to encourage merger of sick companies with profitable ones.  Unfortunately, this provision has not served its purpose in view of the vague and onerous conditions, subject of litigation. 

 

From the provision of erstwhile section 72A, it may be seen that there were number of conditions including satisfaction of the Government, on the recommendation of the specified authority, laid down for such amalgamation. Besides, the amalgamated company was required to submit proposed scheme of amalgamation to the specified authority and thereupon, such an authority would make a recommendation to the Central Government, in that behalf. All these conditions have omitted, after the amendment of section 72A, vide Finance Act, 1999, with effect from 1st April 2000.

 

Sub-section (1) of section 72A provides that, where there has been an amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking or a ship with another company, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the accumulated loss and the unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss or, as the case may be, allowance for depreciation company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected, and other provisions of this Act relating to set-off carry forward of loss and allowance for depreciation shall apply accordingly.

 

4. CONCLUSION:

From the aforementioned it could be seen that the following tax benefits pertain to the transferor company by virtue of the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after an amalgamation:[15]

(i)    Investment Allowance-  under Section 32A(6)

(ii)  Development Rebate- under Section 33(3)

(iii) Development allowance- under Section 33A(5)

(iv)  Scientific research expenditure- under Section 35(5)

(v)  Expenditure on acquisition of patent rights or copyrights- under Section 35A(6)

(vi) Amortization of certain preliminary expenses- under Section 35D(5)

(vii)        Deduction for expenditure on prospecting, etc. for minerals- under Section 35E(7)

 

                              

 

 

 

 



[1] This aspect of the legislation is highlighted by the fact that the Government has always encouraged the merger of companies in order to make economic growth sustainable. In order to make any legislation on the point meaningful, the Government in India has always been concerned to give sufficient incentives to the companies going in for merger. For example, it is necessary that a healthy company should have some incentive to take over sick units, commercially as well as industrially. In pursuance of this the Income Tax Act, 1961 contains certain provisions with respect to amalgamation. 

[2] There may be instances where the businesses of the transferor as well as transferee company may not meet but in order to avail the benefits of the income tax deductions, the companies may be required to amalgamate. In such a case the companies may merge with each other and thereafter demerger may take place. Or the companies may demerge the unrelated business and then merge the companies. This may affect the shareholding company as well. The shareholder of the transferor company equivalent to 75% may not get any shares in the transferee company. This may happen with the help of the following methods:

(i)     By the transferee company buying out the shareholdings in the transferor company for cash which wil get cancelled upon merger.

(ii)   By not allowing the fractional shares but instead allotting the same to a trustee who will sell and pay to the shareholders equivalent sum in money. In this process a large number of small shareholders can be eliminated owing to the specific exchange ratio adopted.

(iii)  By allotting redeemable preference shares to all equity shareholders and then redeeming the preference shares after sometime.

[3] It is to be understood here that Amalgamating company is the company which merges (called transferor company under the Companies Act) and the company with which it merges or which is formed as a result of the merger is the “amalgamated company (called ‘transferee company under the Companies Act)  For example, if company X merges with company Y, Company X is the amalgamating company (transferor company) Company Y is the amalgamating company (transferee company), Likewise if companies P & Q merge and from company R, companies P & Q are the amalgamating companies and company R is the amalgamated company.

The highlight of the definition contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961is that it contemplates the vesting of all property and liabilities  the company to be transferred  the transferee company y virtue of the amalgamation. The Act also contemplates that a least 75% of the shareholders of the transferor company become shareholders of the transferee company. The Indian provisions have been borrowed from the English law. The Indian legislation aids to pooling of resources aforementioned as particular clauses  have been drafted in manner that the assets and liabilities continue to be in the hand of the owner

 

In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd, v CIT,  the Supreme Court traced the scope of amalgamation in the following words:

 

“generally where only one company is involved in a scheme and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganization or scheme of arrangement.  In an amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by one taking over the other.  Reconstruction or amalgamation has no precise legal meaning.  Amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertaking; the shareholders of each blending company become substantially the shareholders of the company which is to carry on the blended undertaking.  There may be amalgamation either by the transfer of two or more undertaking to a new company, or by the transfer of one or more undertakings to an existing company.  Strictly, ‘amalgamation’ does not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of the other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the terms is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition.”

 

The expenses with respect to amalgamation are not to be treated as expenses, in the first instance. These expenses have been termed as not to be deductible in the case of C.I.T. v Official Liquidator, Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd., 244 I.T.R. 156, in which the Gujarat High Court observed that the deductions to be availed of under the Income Tax Act, 1961 have to be seen in the context of “profits and gains of business and profession”. In order to term the expenses as expenses they have to be clearly laid out and this shall not include the expenditure on establishing, replacing, or enlarging the profit yielding asset or income earning apparatus for earning of profits is revenue expenditure. Amalgamation of companies results in substance in the alteration of the capital structure of the transferor company. The scheme of amalgamation results in an affect on the profit making apparatus of the company. The expenses are not meant for carrying on the business of the assessee but for the purpose of acquiring or bringing a change in the structure of the business.     

 

 

[4] There are exemptions provided in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 itself in case of capital gains arising out of transactions. This issue was considered by the Authority for Advance Rulings in In Re, 240 I.T.R. 518. In the instant case, the applicant was a company incorporated in Canada and a 100% subsidiary of a public company incorporated in Canada. It held 16,414,616 shares in an Indian company which constituted its Indian assets. There was a proposal for a vertical short form amalgamation of the applicant and its holding company in accordance with the provisions of Section 184(1) of the Canada Business Corporations Act. As a result, the two companies would amalgamate and would continue as one corporation and the shares held by the applicant in the Indian company would vest in the new corporation. The applicant sought a ruling on the question whether the proposed transaction would attract any tax under the head ‘capital gains’ qua the shares of the Indian company held by it. The AAR ruled that Article 14(2) of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Canada made it clear that there can be taxation of the gains from the alienation of the above assets in both the contracting states but subject to relief under Article 23. Therefore the provisions of the Income Tax Act have to be seen to ascertain the liability to income tax thereunder. The AAR considered two exceptions laid down in clause (vi-a) which provide that there shall be no taxability of the transfer of shares held in an Indian by the amalgamating foreign company to the amalgamated foreign company if at least 25% of the shareholders of the amalgamating foreign company remain shareholders of the amalgamated foreign company and such transfer does not attract tax on capital gains in the country in which the amalgamating company is incorporated. The AAR ruled in the instant case that no tax on the capital gains could be charged because of the vertical short form amalgamation due to the exemption provided under Section 47(vi-a) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. However the AAR also observed that there has to be transfer of the Indian assets and not sale and if there is a sale, then the difference amount of money which could be treated as gain shall be charged to income tax as being a capital gain arising out of the transaction. Clause 47 (via) has wide repercussions in the context of global mergers. There could be cases where a foreign company holding shares in an Indian company may be involved in a transaction in which the incidence of capital gains may arise. The situation can be avoided by the following methods:

(i)     By taking advantage of the provisions in the Double Taxation Agreement (DTAA) if any entered between the Indian and foreign company.

(ii)   By not directly holding shares in the Indian company, but instead through another investment company situated in any other foreign country where there will be lesser incidence of capital gains tax.

(iii)  By setting up transnational subsidiaries in typical tax haven countries like Mauritius where there is in capital gains tax on the sale of any movable property of a resident irrespective of the situs of the property.     

An important question that arises is that is there any capital gain incidence at the time of amalgamation. Capital gains arise only when a capital asset is transferred, sold or extinguished. The word transfer is defined in Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it means sale, exchange or relinquishment of the asset or extinguishments of any rights therein or the compulsory acquisition under any law. But in case of an amalgamation where the asset gets transferred, for example, where company A amalgamates and merges with company B and the shareholders of company A are allotted shares in company B in their own right and not as nominees of company A, then the question arises whether the shareholders are liable to capital gains tax. It becomes clear that such an acquisition of shares by the shareholders of company A have not sold their shares nor have they transferred their shares. Therefore there is no incidence of capital gains arising out of the amalgamation and subsequent treatment of shares. There is no transfer of assets by the shareholders of company A to company B, the transfer of assets of company A cannot be regarded as transfer by its shareholders. Nor is there any transfer by company B when it allots its share capital to the shareholder of company A. The allotment of shares by the company cannot be regarded as a transfer of property by that company. The merger does not involve relinquishment of the asset because the asset ceases to exist upon amalgamation. The amalgamation in the aforementioned case involves the extinguishments of the shares of company A. Therefore there is no capital gains involved in the transfer of shares and thus the shareholders of the amalgamating company cannot be taxed for it.    

[5] At the time of enacting Section 32AB, the government itself clarified that the investment deposit benefit given to assesses for making investment in capital assets (plant and machinery) would be lost to the extent of 20% of the profits as according to the Government in the Indian context amalgamations are undertaken as a tax planning measure. The Government deliberately achieved this by not enacting a provision like Sections 32A and 33.

[6] For more on the topic, See CIT v Moran Tea Company (I) Ltd., 195 ITR 702; CIT v Bombay Dyeing Mfg. Co. Ltd., 85 Taxman 396 (SC).

[7] See Section 32A (5) (a) (b) & (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

[8] The High Court of Calcutta held in Debpara  Tea Co. Ltd. V CIT that, any assessee engaged in planting of tea bushes on any land in India, being the land owned by him, and who carries on the business of growing and manufacturing tea in India can claim development allowance.  The two conditions growing and manufacturing are cumulative.  The assessee can claim development allowance in respect of actual cost of planting.

 

[9] The expression “scientific research” is defined as follows:

(i) “scientific research” means any activities for the   extension of knowledge in the fields of natural or applied science including agriculture, animal husbandry or fisheries

(ii) references to expenditure incurred on scientific research include all expenditure incurred for the prosecution, or the provision of facilities for the prosecution, of scientific research, but  do not include any expenditure incurred in the acquisition of rights in, or arising out of, scientific research;

(i)     references to scientific research related to a business or class of business include –

(a)    any scientific research which may lead to or facilitate an extension of that business or, as the case may be, all business of that class;

any scientific research of a medical nature which has a special relation to the welfare of workers employed in that business or, as the case may be, all business of that class.”

[10] 228 ITR 399.

[11] 140 ITR 143.

[12] Source: Kanga, Palkhivala & Vyas, The Law & Practice of Income Tax, by Dinesh Vyas, 9th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths.

It is to be noted that the assessee who is entitled to a deduction under Section 35A for a period of 14 years is entitled to the same in equal installments. Therefore if during such period, if the assessee merger with another company the amalgamated company shall have the right to all the deductions which the amalgamating company would have. But where the whole or any part of the right is sold by the amalgamated company and the proceeds of sale exceed the cost of acquisition, the excess amount would be charged to income tax. 

[13] It is to be noted that, as again, this benefit is available to the amalgamating company till the time it remains an independent company and after it gets amalgamated, the benefit is available to the amalgamated company. The amalgamated company will get the benefit of the deduction of one tenth of the expenditure in the year in which the amalgamation takes place and also in respect of the remaining installments in future years.

[14] The Central Government has been given the powers to notify such other conditions from time to time to ensure the revival of the business of the amalgamating company or to ensure that the merger is for genuine purpose. The legislation also takes care of the fact that the year in which the specified conditions are not met then the set off or carried forward loss or allowance of depreciation already availed of would be treated income of the year in which the conditions are not complied with. In case of demerger the accumulated loss or depreciation relatable to the undertaking being transferred are allowed to be carried forward and set off in the hands of the resulting company. If the accumulated loss or unabsorbed depreciation is not directly relatable to the undertaking the same is to be apportioned between the demerged company and the resulting company in the ratio of the value of the transferred assets. Power has been conferred on the Central Government to notify such conditions as it considers necessary to ensure that the demerger is for genuine business purposes. The condition of holding of assets and the continuance of the business for a period of five years for the amalgamation suggests to the fact that that the assets being talked about are fixed assets only. The continuance of business should entail the change of inventories and the term value connotes book value. Under the provisions of Section 72A (1), the set off and carry forward of accumulated losses or unabsorbed depreciation are allowed in the case of amalgamation of a company owning an industrial undertaking or a ship with another undertaking. However it is to be noted that the industrial undertaking has not been defined anywhere which could give rise to litigation and in order to avoid such a situation, the Finance Act of 2001 has inserted the definition of the term industrial undertaking in the section to mean any undertaking engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods, or the manufacture of computer software or the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or mining or the construction of ships, aircrafts or rail syatems. The definition has taken effect from 1st April, 2000.

The Government has always been anxious to encourage the amalgamation of sick industries with other profitable undertakings.  In order to make Legislation meaningful on this point, the Government has to give sufficient incentives and inducement for healthy companies to take over sick ones.  Section 72A of the Income Tax Act 1961 was incorporated in the statute to help healthy companies take over sick companies for their revival. The Finance Act (No.2) Act 1977, enacted section 72 A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for granting certain tax benefits where two companies amalgamate under a scheme which is approved by the Central Government.  The benefit relates to the setting off of the accumulated losses and unabsorbed of the amalgamating company against the profits of the amalgamated company.  The old provision was applicable upto assessment year 1999-2000.

 

The condition under section 72 A for the carry forward and set-off of accumulated and unabsorbed depreciation were too stringent to really offer any meaningful incentive for the revival of business.  Therefore the Finance Act 1999, inserted a number of provisions in respect of business reorganization, which includes relaxation of the old provisions relating to amalgamation of companies and recognition of the concept of demerger. 

 

[15] Certain sections from the above may stand deleted but the benefit may be revived as and when it is felt necessary and beneficial by the Indian Legislature. The same holds true for any deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus we have seen that the law provides for ample benefits in the form of various provisions to companies going in for amalgamation. This provides an overall scenario for the economic development of the country where favourable conditions for business to flourish are created and therefore gives incentives to the newly emerged assesses. The benefits may appear to be complicated and non feasible at times but it has to be seen in the context of strong political overtones in the country. The available tax benefits may lead to more and more consolidation activity which may lead to the revival of the economic health of the country. Therefore the tax benefits of mergers would gain in importance as the economy opens up and on a domestic level, facilitate the functioning of many defunct companies. The main purpose of revival of sick units by merging them with healthy companies would certainly hold good as the existing provisions can be termed as being satisfactory in nature in achieving the intended or stated purpose.  


[PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]
LETTERS

There are no letters for this article. To post your own letter, click Post Letter.

[POST LETTER]
Published by Alan Griffiths
Copyright © 2007 International Lawyers Network. All rights reserved.
TELL A FRIEND
Powered by IMN