9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1525 - AT - Income TaxSale of shares - business income or short-term capital gain - Held that - All the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order as discussed above, which have remained un-rebutted or uncontroverted by the ld. D.R., are considered in the light of the relevant CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 as well as the judicial pronouncements cited on behalf of the assessee and relied upon by the ld. CIT(Appeals) in his impugned order, we find ourselves in agreement with the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the relevant shares were purchased and held by the assessee as investment and, therefore, the profit arising from the transactions of purchase and sale thereof is liable to tax in the hands of the assessee as short-term capital gain and not business income. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of profit from the sale of shares as business income or short-term capital gain. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Profit from Sale of Shares: The primary issue in the appeals was whether the profit from the sale of shares should be treated as business income or short-term capital gain. The assessee, a company engaged in dealing in shares and securities and rendering financial consultancy services, declared its income from the sale of shares as short-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer (AO) reclassified this income as business income based on several observations, including the frequency of transactions, the use of borrowed funds, and the intention behind the transactions. Key Findings and Observations: - The assessee maintained separate Demat accounts for shares held as stock-in-trade and investment. - The AO noted the high volume of transactions and the use of borrowed funds, concluding that the shares were held as stock-in-trade. - The CIT(A) found that the assessee's method of maintaining separate accounts was consistent and that the intention to hold shares as investments was clear from the beginning. - The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had been consistent in its treatment of shares in previous years, and this was accepted by the AO in earlier assessments. - The CIT(A) also pointed out that the AO's reliance on certain judicial precedents and CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 was misplaced, as these supported the assessee's case. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the profit from the sale of shares held as investment should be treated as short-term capital gain and not business income. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's intention to hold shares as investments was clear and consistent, and the AO's observations were factually incorrect or irrelevant. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A: The second issue involved the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to expenses incurred in relation to earning exempt income. Key Findings and Observations: - The AO applied Rule 8D to compute the disallowance, which was not applicable for the assessment years in question. - The CIT(A) re-evaluated the disallowance and found that the AO's method was not appropriate. The CIT(A) instead computed the disallowance based on a reasonable allocation of interest expenses. - For A.Y. 2005-06, the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 31,34,937, considering the proportion of borrowed funds used for investment. - For A.Y. 2006-07, the CIT(A) directed the AO to apply Rule 8D, but this was contested by the assessee, as Rule 8D was not applicable for that year. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision for A.Y. 2005-06, finding the disallowance reasonable. For A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s direction to apply Rule 8D, as it was not applicable for that year. The Tribunal noted that the issue was not pressed by the assessee before the CIT(A), and therefore, the CIT(A) should not have decided it on merit. Final Judgment: - All appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. - The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open Court on December 09, 2015.
|
