SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 44

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi – II, New Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 152 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2028 of 2021]
With
M/S Nalwa Investment Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax – V New Delhi – Respondent
With
Civil Appeal No. 153 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2190 of 2021]
M/s Abhinandan Tradex Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Abhinandan Investment Ltd) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi – I, New Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2188 of 2021]
With
M/s Mansarover Tradex Ltd (Earlier Known As M/S Mansarover Investment Ltd) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi – Ii, New Delhi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2026 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2197 of 2021]
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aniket Deepak Agrawal, AOR, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Adv., Ms. Aabgina Chishti, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghavendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Udai Khanna, Adv., Mr. Karan Lahiri, Adv., Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Adv., Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv., Mr. Preeti Rani, Adv., Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv.

Taxable business income arises from the substitution of shares held as stock-in-trade in an amalgamation when such shares are marketable and possess definite value, invoking Section 28 of the Income Tax Act.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(14), 2(47), 28, and 47(vii) - Amalgamation of Companies - Court addressed whether shares held in the amalgamating company constitute stock-in-trade or capital assets, with findings leading to taxable business income upon substitution of stock-in-trade shares with shares of the amalgamated company - Exemption under Section 47(vii) applies only to capital assets. (Paras 12-32)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - High Court cannot exceed jurisdiction in remanding matters without formulating substantial questions of law, but may address collateral issues that arise from lower court findings - High Court's observations on transfer and taxability were justified under the framework of Section 260A. (Paras 10-12, 28)

(C) Concept of 'Realisation' - Profits and gains may arise even in kind instead of cash; when shares of the amalgamating company held as stock-in-trade are substituted by new shares that possess market value, it constitutes commercial realisation under Section 28 leading to taxable income. (Paras 15-18)

(D) Real Income Principle - The doctrine ensures taxation occurs only upon realised gains, preventing the taxation of merely hypothetical profits. (Paras 24-32)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

  1. The appeals concern the tax treatment of shares received in a scheme of amalgamation, specifically whether such shares constitute a transfer and whether the receipt of shares as stock-in-trade or capital assets affects their taxability (!) (!) .

  2. The core issue is whether the substitution of shares upon amalgamation results in a taxable realisation of business profits under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, especially when shares are held as stock-in-trade (!) (!) .

  3. When shares of an amalgamating company are held as stock-in-trade, their substitution by shares of the amalgamated company can lead to a realisation of value, which may be taxable if the shares are marketable and of ascertainable value, thereby constituting a commercial realisation (!) (!) .

  4. The timing of taxability is crucial; tax may only be levied upon the actual allotment of shares when the substitution results in a concrete, realisable benefit, and not merely at the scheme's approval or appointed date (!) (!) .

  5. The concept of "real income" is fundamental; profits are not deemed to accrue until there is a real, commercial benefit that is capable of immediate realisation and valuation, not merely hypothetical or unrealised gains (!) (!) .

  6. The distinction between capital assets and stock-in-trade influences tax treatment: transfers of capital assets under amalgamation may be exempt, whereas transfers of stock-in-trade can give rise to taxable profits upon substitution if they meet the criteria of commercial realisation (!) (!) .

  7. The legal effect of amalgamation is a statutory substitution that results in the extinguishment of the transferor's entity and the continuation of the business within the transferee, with rights and liabilities passing accordingly (!) (!) .

  8. The assessment of whether profits have accrued in the course of business depends on whether the substitution of shares confers a definite market value, is freely tradable, and yields an immediate and ascertainable benefit, satisfying the criteria of commercial realisation (!) (!) .

  9. The legal framework emphasizes that profits from business can accrue in various forms, including in-kind benefits, and the law recognizes that realisation does not necessarily require a sale or exchange in the strict legal sense but can occur through substitution where a real and tangible benefit is obtained (!) (!) .

  10. The courts must evaluate each case on its facts, considering whether the substitution of shares results in a real, commercially realisable profit, before invoking tax under Section 28, and the process involves factual determination by the tax authorities (!) .

  11. The decision to remand the matter to the tribunal underscores the importance of factual assessment regarding the tradability and ascertainable value of shares received upon amalgamation, as well as the nature of the holding (investment vs. stock-in-trade) (!) .

  12. Overall, the legal principles affirm that the substitution of shares upon amalgamation can constitute a taxable realisation if it results in a tangible, measurable, and immediately realisable benefit, aligning with the doctrine of real income, and that the timing of such tax event is upon actual allotment of shares (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific guidance.


Table of Content
1. factual background regarding appeals and amalgamation. (Para 2 , 3)
2. contentions regarding taxability of shares received. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis focused on taxability of shares in amalgamation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 24 , 28 , 32)
4. determination of taxable business profits upon amalgamation. (Para 12 , 30)
5. final judgment upholding high court's decision. (Para 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and final order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005, pertaining to the Assessment Year 1997-98. By the impugned judgment, the High Court remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2[For short, “the Tribunal”] for fresh adjudication on the question of whether the shares held in the amalgamating company constituted stock-in-trade or capital assets, upon observing that, if the shares were, in fact, held as stock-in-trade, the transaction would fall outside the purview of Section 47(vii) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 19613[For short, “the I.T. Act”], and its taxability would consequently be governed by Section 28 under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The facts, which are common to all these appeals, may be briefly stated as under:

3.1. The appellants are investment companies of the Jindal Group. The shares of the operating companies, namely Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) and Jindal Strips Limited (JSL), were held as part of the promoter holding, representing controlling interest. The appellants had also furnished non-disposal undertakings to the financial institutions / lenders who had advanced loans to the operating companies. These shares were reflected as investments in the balance sheets of the appellants.

3.2. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1997-98, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by orders dated 19.09.1996 and 03.10.1996 of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana respectively, under Sections 391 – 394 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013, JFAL was amalgamated with JSL. As per the sanctioned scheme, the appointed date of amalgamation was 01.04.1995, and the orders sanctioning the amalgamation were filed with the Registrar of Companies on 22.11.1996 (the effective date). Under the scheme of amalgamation, the shareholders of JFAL were allotted 45 shares of JSL for every 100 shares of JFAL held by them. Accordingly, the appellants were allotted shares of JSL in lieu of the shares of JFAL.

3.3. The appellants, in their returns of income filed for the assessment year in question, claimed exemption under Section 47(vii) of the I.T. Act in respect of the receipt of JSL shares in lieu of JFAL shares, treating the same to be capital assets. However, in the assessment completed under Section 143(3) vide order dated 29.02.2000, the Assessing Officer treated the shares of JFAL as stock-in- trade, denied the exemption under Section 47(vii), and brought to tax the value of JSL shares as business income, computed with reference to their market value. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

3.4. On further appeals, the Tribunal vide order dated 17.02.2005, allowed the assessees’ appeals by observing that it was unnecessary to decide whether the shares were held as stock-in-trade or capital assets since no profit accrues unless the shares held by the appellants are either sold or transferred for consideration, irrespective of the nature of holding. It was further observed that there was admittedly no sale of shares and, therefore, the only question for consideration was whether the allotment of JSL shares in lieu of JFAL shares under the scheme of amalgamation amounted to a “transfer”. Following the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. Rasiklal Maneklal (HUF) and others , (1989) 177 I

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top