2006 (4) TMI 440 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of investment activity as business activity.
2. Taxability of bonus shares as business profit.
3. Assessment of income as capital gains.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Investment Activity as Business Activity:
The core issue was whether the assessee's investment activities should be classified as business activities, thereby treating the capital gains from the sale of shares as business profits. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the profits from the sale of shares, including those of M/s. Penta Soft Ltd. and M/s. Satyam Computers Ltd., were chargeable as business profits, not as long-term capital gains. This was based on the assessee's frequent transactions in shares in the preceding year, suggesting a pattern of trading rather than investing. However, the assessee argued that it had always functioned as an investment company, as evidenced by its Memorandum of Association and consistent behavior since inception. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were more aligned with those of an investor rather than a trader, given the limited scale of transactions, the holding period of shares, and the nature of the funds used (own funds, not borrowed). The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, to support the principle that an entity can be both a trader and an investor, depending on the intention and conduct.

2. Taxability of Bonus Shares as Business Profit:
The second issue was whether the bonus shares received by the assessee should be taxed as business profits. The CIT(A) had held that the bonus shares were related to trading shares and thus taxable as business profits. The assessee contended that the bonus shares were held as investments and should be taxed as long-term capital gains. The Tribunal noted that the shares of Pentafour Software Ltd. and Satyam Computers Ltd. were acquired with the expectation of good performance and held for a significant period before being sold. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's actions were consistent with those of an investor, not a trader, and thus the gains from the sale of these bonus shares should be treated as long-term capital gains.

3. Assessment of Income as Capital Gains:
The final issue was the overall assessment of the assessee's income. The assessee argued that its income should be assessed as capital gains, not business income, based on its consistent treatment of share acquisitions as investments. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the assessee had depicted its shareholdings as investments, used its own funds for acquisitions, and had a small infrastructure indicative of an investor rather than a trader. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of finality in legal proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd., and concluded that the AO should not deviate from the previously accepted position without following the requisite legal procedures. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the gains from the sale of shares be assessed as capital gains.

Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed. The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities were consistent with those of an investor, and the gains from the sale of shares, including bonus shares, should be treated as capital gains, not business profits. This decision was based on the assessee's consistent behavior, the nature of its transactions, and the legal principles established in relevant case law.