Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2005 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (6) TMI 209 - ITAT BANGALORE-AChargeable to tax as income - capital gain - invoking provisions of section 45(4) - Partnership firm - Transfer of assets in the conversion of partnership firm into private limited company - fair market value on the date of the transfer - depreciation on the assets on pro rata basis - HELD THAT:- It is not the case that section 45(1) can be invoked to tax the capital gain in the present situation. The interest of a partner in a firm is not an interest in any specific item of the partnership property. It is a right to obtain his share of profits from time to time during the subsistence of the partnership and on dissolution of the firm or on his retirement from the partnership, to get the value of his share in the net assets of the firm. When, therefore, on dissolution or retirement, a partner's share in the net partnership asset is determined on taking accounts, what he receives is his share in the partnership and not any consideration for transfer of his interest in the partnership. In such a situation, there is no transfer of interest within the definition of section 2(47) of the Act. This proposition are clearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT [1979 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of CIT v. Mahanbhai Pamabhai [1971 (9) TMI 56 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Mohanbhai Pamabhai [1987 (2) TMI 59 - SC ORDER]. The persons who were either to register under the Partnership Act are now registered under the Companies Act and accordingly, section 45(4) will not apply in such a situation. We accordingly hold that no capital gain is chargeable in such a situation as there is no distribution of capital asset on dissolution of firm or otherwise. When a conversion of a firm into company takes place under the provisions of Companies Law, such conversion can be construed only as occasioned by operation of law. Hence, no controversy can arise on the application of this principle even for purposes of capital gains under section 45(4) of the Act. By insertion of section 47(xiii) in the Act, it cannot be said that the c conversion of a firm into a company under Part IX is to be first treated as dissolution of firm within the meaning of section 45(4) and only if condition as contained in section 47(xiii) are complied, the exemption will be available. Section 47(xiii) applies only to a case of transfer by sale, but there is no authority for capital gain at all in the absence of a transfer under Part IX of the Companies Act inasmuch as such conversions do not fall within the definition of transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. Section 45(4) would have application only when there is distribution of assets to the partners so that its application cannot be justified, firstly because it can apply only, when there is transfer and secondly only when there is distribution of assets to the partners. This is neither in the conversion of a firm into a company. It is also seen that section 47(xiii) is also complied with if it is held that there is transfer of capital asset to a company. All the clauses of section 47(xiii) are fulfilled and thus even if it is held that there is a transfer of capital asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession, the same is not chargeable, as the condition prescribed therein are complied with. Thus, looking at either angle, the capital gain is not chargeable to tax. It is clear that when the depreciation is allowable on the assets to the predecessor and the successor, the depreciation has to be apportioned between the predecessor and successor in the ratio of number of days for which the assets were used by them. This proviso will apply not only when the succession is as per section 47(xiii) and 47(xiv) of the Act but also where succession is as per section 170 of the Act. Clearly, in this case, the firm is entitled to depreciation for the number of days the assets were used by it. We accordingly do not find any reason to dislodge the finding of the learned CIT(A). In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed.
|