Abstract: The Delhi High Court has in PCIT v. Globe Capital Market Limited held that a share buy-back falls outside the purview of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ruling reconciles the taxation framework with Section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013. The judgement explains that statutory mandate that bought-back shares must be extinguished within seven days, making the predicate of a deemed income charge under Section 56(2)(x) legally incoherent in the buy-back context. This article examines the issue of taxation of buy-backs and analyses how the Court reconciled the apparent conflict between the Income-tax Act and the Companies Act.
1. Introduction
Section 56(2)(x) is Parliament’s response to a pervasive tax avoidance technique i.e. transferring assets to related persons at artificially low prices and bypassing income tax. It was introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 with provisions taxing receiver of property, wherein the recipient acquired the property for inadequate consideration based on the market value. The provision was deliberately given a wide ambit to address a multitude of arrangements and transactions used by parties to bypass taxation.
That wide ambit, however, has been critiqued for overreach. For assessment year 2018-19, section 56(2)(x) was invoked against Globe Capital Market Limited on the basis that its buy-back of equity shares at ₹313.40 per share, against a Rule 11UA Fair market value of ₹370.46 deeming an addition of ₹16.33 crore to income. The reasoning adopted was that shares are “property” under the provision and given the company acquired them below Fair market value, the difference would be taxable. However this reasoning ignored that a buy back is legally required to end in the extinguishment of the share, meaning that the company cannot, in any real legal sense, be said to have received property.
The Delhi High Court, in PCIT v. Globe Capital Market Limited , rejected this reasoning. The judgment is significant not merely because it favoured the assessee, but because it clarifies the limits of section 56(2)(x) where the transaction does not fall within its scope. Its relevance extends to all buy-back years from AY 2018–19 onwards and has become even more important following the changes introduced by the Finance Act, 2024.
2. The Statutory Conflict between Section 56(2)(x):
Income-tax Act, 1961 and Section 68 of the Companies Act Section 56(2)(x) taxes “income from other sources” as the excess of the Fair market value of property over the consideration paid where property other than immovable property is acquired). Section 56(2)(x) was inserted in place of section 56(2)(viia), which formerly applied only to shares of closely-held companies. This was deemed too narrow and the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 states that change was intended to widen the ambit and address loopholes used by parties to avoid tax. However in the entire legislation nowhere buy-back or capital reductions are addressed.
Section 68 of the Companies Act provides a statutory mechanism for reducing share capital through a buy-back. It stipulates various statutory requirements before buy-backs can be initiated. Most importantly though Section 68(7) requires the extinguishment of bought-back shares within 7 days forbidding retaining or re-issuing. This is rooted in foundation corporate governance principle that a company cannot hold itself as a shareholder. Buy-Backs are merely an exception to this principle, as they facilitate return of capital in a structured way with limitations.
Globe Capital had already paid tax under Section 115QA which was a special provision that taxed buy-backs of shares by domestic companies. The Assessing Officer’s attempt to also invoke section 56(2)(x) created a structural difficulty. It is a well-established legal principle that specific provisions prevail over general ones. Section 115QA was the lex specialis for company-level buy-back taxation, while section 56(2)(x) is a general anti-abuse provision. Using section 56(2)(x) in addition to section 115QA would therefore would create a statutory conflict.
3. The Court’s Approach to the Statutory Conflict in Globe Capital
The Delhi High Court in Globe Capital rejected the argument that Section 56(2)(x) was applicable given “shares” are included as “property” under the statutory definition. The Court observed that a buy-back is a mechanism of capital reduction instead of an acquisition of property. The security in question are not assets that the issuing company have rights over upon buy-back instead shareholders do. The Court emphasised that Section 68(7) requires extinguishment of bought-back share within seven days. Hence, there is no retention or acquisition of property from the issuing company’s perspective. It acknowledged the legal nature of buy-back as a capital reduction mechanism under section 68 of the Companies Act, observing a buy-back of a company’s own shares is “the antithesis of buying an asset.”
The Delhi High Court’s ruling t adequately addresses the conflict on two main issues (i) he statutory limits of section 56(2)(x) and (ii) he legal nature of a buy-back under company law. Firstly, Section 56(2)(x) applies only when there is a receipt of property for inadequate consideration. The argument that shares fall within the statutory definition of “property” is correct, however it fails to establish the company as recipient of that property as envisaged in the provision. The sole reason a company acquires its shares in a buy-back is for extinguishment under Section 68(7) of the Companies Act. Hence, a buy-back under Section 68 of Companies act is capital reduction and not acquisitions. Secondly, deemed provisions must be construed strictly. Section 115QA existed, imposing Section 56(2)(x) as additional liability on the same transaction would have resulted in statutory conflict.
4. Conclusion
The decision in PCIT v. Globe Capital Market Limited clarifies the scope of Section 56(2)(x) in the context of buy-backs. The Delhi High Court clarified that a buy-back under section 68 of the Companies Act is a mechanism for capital reduction and not an acquisition of property therefore resolving the apparent conflict between the Income-tax Act and the Companies Act by giving effect to the true legal character of a buy-back. The judgment is also consistent with settled principles of statutory interpretation reasoning that deeming provisions must be applied strictly and only where their statutory requirements are satisfied. Accordingly, Globe Capital is an important precedent reinforcing the principle that general anti-abuse provisions cannot be extended beyond their intended scope and provides much-needed clarity on the tax treatment of corporate buy-backs.
Author Bio
