On 1st May 2023, M Sudarshan, a resident individual, received 1,500 bonus shares from Sugam Pvt. Ltd. in which he held 3,000 equity shares. The…

CA Final · Direct Tax Laws and International Taxation · MTP · May 2024
On 1st May 2023, M Sudarshan, a resident individual, received 1,500 bonus shares from Sugam Pvt. Ltd. in which he held 3,000 equity shares. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee has not paid any consideration for bonus shares, he was under an obligation in law to offer the market value as income from other sources under section 56(2)(x) of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the fair value of these bonus shares and added the amount to the income of M Sudarshan as "Income from other sources".Whether the decision of the Assessing Officer is correct in law?

Suggested Answer and Working Notes:

Issue Involved: The issue under consideration is whether bonus shares received by shareholders would be taxable under the head 'Income from other sources' as per the provisions of section 56 (2) (x) , as they are received without consideration. Provision Applicable: Section 56 (2) (x) brings to tax any sum of money or value of property received by any person without consideration or for inadequate consideration from any person. Analysis: The issue of bonus shares by capitalization of reserves is merely a reallocation of the company's funds. There is no inflow of fresh funds or increase in the capital employed, which remains the same. Thus, there is no addition or alteration to the profit-making apparatus and the total funds available with the company remain the same. On the other hand, when a shareholder gets bonus shares, the value of the original shares held by him goes down and the market value as well as intrinsic value of the two shares put together will be the same or nearly the same as the value of original share before the issue of bonus shares. Thus, any profit derived by the assessee shareholder on account of receipt of bonus shares is adjusted by depreciation in the value of equity shares originally held by him. Conclusion: Accordingly, the action of the Assessing Officer in including the fair value of bonus shares as Income from other sources of M Sudarshan is incorrect. Note - The facts given in the question are similar to the facts in PCIT v. Dr. Ranjan Pai (2021) 431 ITR 250, wherein the issue came up before the Karnataka High Court. The above answer is based on the rationale of the Karnataka High Court in the said case.

Topics: Case Laws

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic