Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 264 - AT - Income TaxIncome from sale of shares - Long Term Capital Gain - Held that - In the case on hand, we find that the assessee has earned substantial income by way of dividend and also that the assessee has not borrowed any funds for making purchases in shares. The entire investment was from own funds. The transactions are delivery based transactions. Just because the assessee maintains multiple portfolios, it cannot be concluded that the assessee is a trader. The mere fact that the transactions are voluminous, does not lead to a conclusion that the assessee has traded in shares. As a prudent investor, the assessee may have sold certain shares within a short period, as in her opinion, the sale had been made at the opportune time. The assessee, in this case, has not valued her investments at cost or net realisable value whichever is less and claimed losses as in the case of stockin- trade. On this factual matrix, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority that income from sale of shares which are held by the assessee for more than one year, is to be assessed as income earned from long term capital gain. Treating short term capital gain earned by the assessee as business income - Held that - As the assessee is an Investor , we restore ground no.1, which is on the issue of treating short term capital gain earned by the assessee as business income, to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Treatment of losses on derivative transactions as non-speculative loss by the first appellate authority - Held that - We find that the issue is covered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by the decision of a Special Bench of the Tribunal in Shree Capital Services v/s ACIT 2009 (7) TMI 172 - ITAT CALCUTTA wherein it is held that clause (d) of section 43(5) of the Act cannot be held to be clarificatory and it applies only to assessment year 2006-07 and onwards. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Bharat R. Ruia 2011 (4) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT impliedly upheld the Special Bench decision. At Para-37, the argument that amendment by way of insertion of clause (d) to the proviso to section 43(5), is clarificatory and, hence, retrospective was rejected by the Hon ble Court. In view of the above, we allow grounds no.2 to 5 of the Revenue. Disallowance under section 14A - Held that - disallowance in question is excessive. This issue is also restored to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication keeping in view the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT .
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from share transactions as "Business Income" versus "Capital Gains" (Short Term and Long Term). 2. Disallowance of bad debt claims. 3. Disallowance of business expenses under Section 14A. 4. Treatment of losses on derivative transactions as speculative or non-speculative. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Income from Share Transactions: The primary issue revolves around whether the income from share transactions should be treated as "Business Income" or "Capital Gains." The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the income from share transactions as "Business Income" due to the high volume and short holding period of shares, suggesting a trading motive. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the AO to treat profits from shares held for more than one year as "Long Term Capital Gain," recognizing the assessee's history as an investor. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, emphasizing the principle of consistency and the assessee's long-term investment pattern. The Tribunal also restored the issue of short-term capital gains to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed examination of the holding period of shares. 2. Disallowance of Bad Debt Claims: The assessee claimed a bad debt of Rs. 3,75,902 due to bad delivery of shares. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal both upheld the AO's decision to disallow this claim, stating that since the shares were held as investments, the loss is in the capital field and cannot be claimed as a bad debt. 3. Disallowance of Business Expenses under Section 14A: The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 64,334 as business expenses under Section 14A. The Commissioner (Appeals) restricted this disallowance to Rs. 30,000, which the Tribunal found reasonable, citing the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, maintaining that a reasonable amount should be disallowed under Section 14A. 4. Treatment of Losses on Derivative Transactions: For the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the issue was whether losses on derivative transactions should be treated as speculative or non-speculative. The Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in Shree Capital Services v/s ACIT and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT v/s Bharat R. Ruia, which held that the amendment by way of insertion of clause (d) to section 43(5) is not retrospective. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2005-06, treating the losses as speculative. For the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to treat these transactions as non-speculative, consistent with the amendment effective from 1st April 2006. Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges: The order was delivered per bench, with no separate judgments by individual judges mentioned. The consolidated order addressed all issues collectively. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue, emphasizing the importance of consistency in tax treatment, the factual matrix of holding periods, and specific legal precedents. The classification of income from share transactions was the most significant issue, with the Tribunal directing a fresh examination for short-term capital gains while upholding the treatment of long-term capital gains as investment income. The disallowance of bad debt claims and business expenses under Section 14A were upheld, and the treatment of derivative losses was aligned with the relevant legal amendments and judicial decisions.
|