Rationalisation of the provision of slump sale in Budget 2021

Section 50B of the Act contains special provision for computation of capital gains in case of slump sale. Sub-section (42C) of section 2 of the Act defines “slump sale” to mean the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of sale for lump sum consideration without value being assigned to individual assets and liabilities in such cases. This has been interpreted by some courts that other means of transfer listed in sub-section (47) of section 2 of the Act, in relation to definition of the word “transfer” in relation to capital asset like exchange, relinquishment etc, are excluded.

While discussing transfer as a result of sale it needs to be kept in mind that it is the substance of transaction that is more important than the name given to it by the parties to the transaction. For example, a transaction of “sale” may be disguised as “exchange” by the parties to the transaction, but such transactions may already be covered under the definition of slump sale as it exists today on the basis that it is transfer by way of sale and not by way of exchange. This principle was enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. R.R. Ramakrishna Pillai [(1967) 66 ITR 725 SC]. Thus, if a transfer of an asset is in lieu of another asset (non-monetary) it can be said to be monetized in a situation where the consideration for the asset transferred is ascertained first and is then discharged by way of non- monetary assets.

In this situation it would be a case of transfer by way of sale and would thus be covered within existing provisions of section 50C of the Act. Based on this principle, Hon‘ble SC in the case of Artex Manufacturing Company [(1997), 227 ITR 260] held that the sale of business on a going concern for a lump-sum non-monetary consideration was transfer by way of sale on the ground that the slump price was determined by the value on the basis of itemized assets, though this price was not mentioned in the agreement. Similarly, Ho‘ble SC in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills [(2006) 147 STC 57] considered the case of a dealer who took a sugar mill on long term lease for an agreed amount of license fee and in satisfaction therefore, the dealer was required to give the entire quantity of molasses to the owner of the sugar mill. It was held that the said transaction “in effect and substance” involved passing of monetary consideration and was accordingly liable to sales tax.

Thus, a transfer which “in effect and substance” is by way of sale is also currently covered in the definition of slump sale under section 50C of the Act as interpreted by various courts. However, it is still seen that tax avoidance schemes are drawn to defeat the intent of this provision and Courts can always intervene to find the true substance of the transaction and purpose of section of 50C of the Act.

In order to make the intention clear, it is proposed to amend the scope of the definition of the term “slump sale” by amending the provision of clause (42C) of section 2 of the Act so that all types of “transfer” as defined in clause (47) of section 2 of the Act are included within its scope.

This amendment will take effect from the 1st April, 2021 and shall accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to faceless complainces