The ITAT, Mumbai has held1 that the premium
paid by the company on buyback of shares of a warring shareholder group is
deductible as business expenditure in the
hands of the company. Thus, it allowed the premium of Rs. 6.82 crores (over
the face value of Rs. 8.40 lakhs) paid for buying back 34% of the shares held
by such group. Though the decision is similar
to a few earlier decisions on similar set, it is still noteworthy. This is
because, strangely, it allows the whole of the premium paid for buyback of
shares deductible as business expenditure. It is submitted that this does not
consider the nature of buyback of shares, particularly its accounting and legal
implications and hence requires reconsideration. At the very least, a grossly excessive amount
is allowed as deduction. Nevertheless, the decision, even if diluted, would be useful
in several situations that are commonly seen in case of unlisted companies and
also seen recently in case of listed companies.
paid by the company on buyback of shares of a warring shareholder group is
deductible as business expenditure in the
hands of the company. Thus, it allowed the premium of Rs. 6.82 crores (over
the face value of Rs. 8.40 lakhs) paid for buying back 34% of the shares held
by such group. Though the decision is similar
to a few earlier decisions on similar set, it is still noteworthy. This is
because, strangely, it allows the whole of the premium paid for buyback of
shares deductible as business expenditure. It is submitted that this does not
consider the nature of buyback of shares, particularly its accounting and legal
implications and hence requires reconsideration. At the very least, a grossly excessive amount
is allowed as deduction. Nevertheless, the decision, even if diluted, would be useful
in several situations that are commonly seen in case of unlisted companies and
also seen recently in case of listed companies.
The
essential ground for allowing deduction was that the buyback was in the
interests of the company which otherwise was suffering because of internecine
disputes. After the settlement/payment, the Company’s business saw a revival of
fortunes in terms of significantly increased sales.
essential ground for allowing deduction was that the buyback was in the
interests of the company which otherwise was suffering because of internecine
disputes. After the settlement/payment, the Company’s business saw a revival of
fortunes in terms of significantly increased sales.
In
doing this, it followed an earlier decision2 of the same Tribunal, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Bombay High
Court. In this case too, it was noted that on account of the disputes between
two shareholder groups, the sales had gone down and the company faced other
difficulties. After the settlement and buyback of shares, the company saw
increased sales and profits, new confidence by the bankers by way of fresh
loans, etc.
doing this, it followed an earlier decision2 of the same Tribunal, the appeal against which was dismissed by the Bombay High
Court. In this case too, it was noted that on account of the disputes between
two shareholder groups, the sales had gone down and the company faced other
difficulties. After the settlement and buyback of shares, the company saw
increased sales and profits, new confidence by the bankers by way of fresh
loans, etc.
There is another
decision3 of similar ratio, though here,
it is not clear whether and what part of the amount paid as settlement to
shareholders was for buyback of shares.
decision3 of similar ratio, though here,
it is not clear whether and what part of the amount paid as settlement to
shareholders was for buyback of shares.
However,
when the Company buys back shares, it is generally returning the value of the
shares in the form of face value as originally paid, accumulated reserves and
value of assets like goodwill, etc. that is not recognized in the books. Such
return can hardly be a business expenditure.
when the Company buys back shares, it is generally returning the value of the
shares in the form of face value as originally paid, accumulated reserves and
value of assets like goodwill, etc. that is not recognized in the books. Such
return can hardly be a business expenditure.
The
accounting treatment under accounting principles and also under Section 77A (and
related provisions) of the Companies Act, 1956, clearly supports this. The face
value of shares bought back is reduced from the paid up capital and the surplus
(premium) is debited to reserves such as securities premium account or other
reserves (other than revaluation reserve). These provisions generally do not
permit debiting the amount paid to profit and loss account for the year.
accounting treatment under accounting principles and also under Section 77A (and
related provisions) of the Companies Act, 1956, clearly supports this. The face
value of shares bought back is reduced from the paid up capital and the surplus
(premium) is debited to reserves such as securities premium account or other
reserves (other than revaluation reserve). These provisions generally do not
permit debiting the amount paid to profit and loss account for the year.
There
is, however, merit in these decisions for a partial amount, to the extent the
facts support them. There may be cases where shareholders may create such a
nuisance value that it may seriously impact the working of the company (as what
has happened in the above cited cases). The Company may end up buying back
shares at a price higher than their fair value, just to get such hurdles out of
the way so the Company can focus on its business. The excess may be deductible
because it represents purely the amount paid on account of business expediency.
But the fair value paid should, it is submitted, still not be deductible.
is, however, merit in these decisions for a partial amount, to the extent the
facts support them. There may be cases where shareholders may create such a
nuisance value that it may seriously impact the working of the company (as what
has happened in the above cited cases). The Company may end up buying back
shares at a price higher than their fair value, just to get such hurdles out of
the way so the Company can focus on its business. The excess may be deductible
because it represents purely the amount paid on account of business expediency.
But the fair value paid should, it is submitted, still not be deductible.
In
the present decisions, the whole of the premium amount paid (the face value,
incidentally, was very nominal) has been allowed as a deduction.
the present decisions, the whole of the premium amount paid (the face value,
incidentally, was very nominal) has been allowed as a deduction.
The
fact that the shares constitute a very significant percentage of capital (34%
in this case) should have also been a relevant factor for not allowing such
deduction.
fact that the shares constitute a very significant percentage of capital (34%
in this case) should have also been a relevant factor for not allowing such
deduction.
There
is another way to look at this. Often, similar inter-shareholder group disputes
are settled by one group buying out the other. In such a case, the amount paid
would be treated as a cost of shares purchased which would be treated as a
revenue expenditure. Only on eventual sale of the shares such amount would be
deductible but even in such a case, only “excess”payment paid for removing
nuisance would effectively be deductible. To take an example, if, say, the fair
value of the shares is Rs. 100 but Rs. 120 is paid, then, assuming that the
shares are sold the very next day at Rs. 100, the excess Rs. 20 (and not Rs.
120) would only be available as a deduction.
is another way to look at this. Often, similar inter-shareholder group disputes
are settled by one group buying out the other. In such a case, the amount paid
would be treated as a cost of shares purchased which would be treated as a
revenue expenditure. Only on eventual sale of the shares such amount would be
deductible but even in such a case, only “excess”payment paid for removing
nuisance would effectively be deductible. To take an example, if, say, the fair
value of the shares is Rs. 100 but Rs. 120 is paid, then, assuming that the
shares are sold the very next day at Rs. 100, the excess Rs. 20 (and not Rs.
120) would only be available as a deduction.
Nevertheless,
these decisions would have relevance in cases of settlement of shareholder disputes.
In particular, it would also be helpful in the several cases of buyout of
minority/small shareholders during complete delisting since often the Company
pays a higher price to get rid of small but litigative shareholders.
these decisions would have relevance in cases of settlement of shareholder disputes.
In particular, it would also be helpful in the several cases of buyout of
minority/small shareholders during complete delisting since often the Company
pays a higher price to get rid of small but litigative shareholders.
1. Chemosyn Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, 8(3) (OSD), Mumbai (2012) 25 taxmann.com 325 (Mum.)
2 Echjay Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2004] 88 TTJ 1089
3 USV Ltd. JCIT ((2007) 106 TTJ 535 Bom-Trib