Share Swaps Not Always Income Tax Free: What This Supreme Court Ruling Means for Mergers and Investors
Supreme Court rules that share swaps in mergers can attract immediate income tax when shares are held as trading stock and give real commercial value.
Indian companies often treat mergers as tax-neutral events for shareholders. No money is paid. Shares of one company disappear and shares of another company take their place. This treatment has shaped merger planning for decades. The Supreme Court has now clarified that this approach does not apply in all situations. The Court has held that when shares are held as trading stock,...
Indian companies often treat mergers as tax-neutral events for shareholders. No money is paid. Shares of one company disappear and shares of another company take their place. This treatment has shaped merger planning for decades.
The Supreme Court has now clarified that this approach does not apply in all situations. The Court has held that when shares are held as trading stock, their replacement through a merger can give rise to immediate taxable business income. The ruling places substance over form and ties taxation to commercial gain.
The business reality behind the ruling
The case before the Supreme Court in Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd case did not involve a passive investor. It involved entities that dealt in shares as part of their business.
The court examined what happens when trading stock disappears because of a merger and new shares are allotted in its place. The central issue was whether this substitution itself creates income.
The court answered this question in clear terms. It held that business income does not require cash. Income can arise even when consideration is received in another form.
The court stated:
“Section 28 is a comprehensive charging provision designed to bring within the tax net all real profits and gains arising in the course of business, whether convertible into money or received in money or in kind, and irrespective of whether such accrual or receipt of income is accompanied by a legal transfer in the strict sense.”
This principle drives the entire judgment.
Why transfer is not the deciding factor
Many taxpayers argue that a merger does not involve a transfer. The amalgamating company ceases to exist. Shares are cancelled by law. According to this view, tax should not arise.
The Supreme Court rejected this approach.
The Court held that Section 28 does not depend on the existence of a legal transfer. What matters is whether income arises in a commercial sense.
The Court stated:
“It is sufficient if there is ‘income’, and the ‘transfer’, whether it is actual, material, or immaterial, is not relevant.”
The Court also clarified the nature of amalgamation itself:
“Amalgamation is more than a mere contractual transfer; it is a statutory process of substitution.”
This means that the disappearance of old shares and the appearance of new shares is a commercial event, not a neutral replacement.
Receipt of shares as income in kind
The Supreme Court treated the allotment of new shares as a form of consideration.
Where shares are held as trading stock, their substitution results in receipt of something of value.
The court explained this in direct terms:
“Where an assessee receives shares of the amalgamated company in place of its shares held as trading stock, there is, in form, a receipt of consideration in kind.”
This approach aligns business income with real-world commercial outcomes.
Safeguards built into the ruling
The court did not tax every merger. It placed strict conditions before income can be said to arise.
The court held that receipt of shares alone does not trigger tax. The shares must also have commercial substance.
The court stated:
“Mere receipt of shares does not suffice to attract Section 28; commercial realisability is also required when income is received in kind.”
The court further clarified when tax arises:
“The charge under Section 28 is not attracted on the mere sanction of the scheme or on the appointed date, but only upon the receipt of the new shares.”
This protects taxpayers from premature taxation.
The real income principle at work
The judgment rests firmly on the real income doctrine.
Tax law targets actual profit. It does not tax imagined gain.
The court explained when profit becomes real:
“Profits, in the commercial sense, are ascertainable only when the old position is closed and the new position is determined in terms of money’s worth.”
The court also warned against expanding tax law beyond real income:
“Courts cannot, by analogy, extend Section 28 to tax hypothetical accretions in the absence of an express statutory mandate.”
This ensures that valuation disputes alone do not create tax.
Who bears the burden of proof
The Supreme Court placed responsibility on the tax department.
It held that tax cannot arise by assumption. The Revenue must establish real benefit.
The court stated:
“The enquiry whether, consequent upon an amalgamation, the allotment of new shares has resulted in a real and presently realisable commercial benefit must be determined on the facts of each case.”
The court added:
“The burden lies on the Revenue to establish the same.”
This protects genuine restructurings from automatic taxation.
Why the Court addressed tax avoidance
A key concern behind the ruling was protection of the tax base.
The Court warned that exempting trading stock during mergers would create serious abuse.
It stated:
“Enterprises could create shell entities, warehouse trading stock or unrealised profits therein, and then amalgamate so as to convert them into new shares without ever subjecting the commercial gain to tax.”
The Court also explained why traders cannot be treated like investors:
“Traders deal with stock-in-trade as part of their profit-making apparatus; to exempt them from charge at the point of substitution would undermine the integrity of the tax base.”
This reasoning shaped the final outcome.
Final legal position laid down
The Supreme Court summed up its conclusion in clear terms:
“Where the shares of an amalgamating company, held as stock-in-trade, are substituted by shares of the amalgamated company pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, and such shares are realisable in money and capable of definite valuation, the substitution gives rise to taxable business income within the meaning of Section 28 of the I.T. Act.”
This statement is now the governing rule.
What this means for Indian businesses
The ruling changes how mergers must be planned.
- Trading entities face tax at the point of receipt of shares.
- Tax timing shifts forward.
- Cash flow planning becomes critical.
Family offices, NBFCs, banks, and investment firms must reassess classification of holdings. Balance sheet labels will not decide tax outcome.
Each case will turn on facts, valuation and marketability.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
