9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 73 - AT - Income TaxFailure to deduction TDS - composite charges for rofessional and technical services rendered by the stock exchange to its members - computation of income - capital gain versus business income - Dis allowance u/s 14A - Held that - transaction fees paid to the stock exchange could not be said to be a fees paid in consideration of stock exchange rendering any technical services to the assessee. The provisions of section 9(1)(vii) Explanation 2, were, therefore, not attracted. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source Regarding nature of income - the manner in which the books had been maintained is an important piece of evidence for arriving at proper conclusion in such circumstances - Mere intention to liquidate the investment at higher value does not imply that the intention was only to trade in security - it is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolios, i.e. an investment portfolio comprising of securities which are to be treated as capital assets and a trading portfolio comprising of stock-in trade which are to be treated as trading assets Rule 8D is not retrospective - Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06 - The assessee s plea that it had not incurred any expenditure for earning the dividend income has not been considered by the learned CIT(A) - matter restored before AO for denovo consideration.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of VSAT, Leaseline, and Transaction Charges u/s 40(a)(ia) 2. Classification of Income as Capital Gains vs. Business Income 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Expenditure Incurred to Earn Dividend Income Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of VSAT, Leaseline, and Transaction Charges u/s 40(a)(ia) The revenue contended that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of VSAT, Leaseline, and Transaction charges of Rs. 2,21,755/- under section 40(a)(ia) without appreciating that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the stock exchange to its members, and the assessee failed to deduct TDS thereon. The AO determined that these charges were payable to the Stock Exchange for services provided in securities transactions, which were technical services, thus requiring TDS under section 194. Consequently, the AO disallowed the claim. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, following the ITAT Mumbai's decision in Kotak Securities Pvt. Ltd., which held that the Stock Exchange does not provide managerial services, and the fees paid are not for technical services, thus no TDS was deductible. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing the ITAT ruling in Kotak Securities Ltd. v. Addl.CIT, which concluded that transaction fees paid to the Stock Exchange are not for technical services, thereby no TDS was required, and section 40(a)(ia) was not applicable. 2. Classification of Income as Capital Gains vs. Business Income The AO treated Rs. 47,23,828/- as business income instead of capital gains, arguing that the assessee, being a trader, had a high frequency and volume of transactions, used borrowed funds for share purchases, and had no clear intent to hold the shares as investments. The AO cited various principles and case laws, including the Supreme Court's decision in CT v. Sutlej Cotton Mills and Associated Industrial Development Co.(P) Ltd., to support his conclusion. The assessee contended that the shares were held as investments, maintaining separate demat accounts for investment and trading, and no borrowed funds were used for investments. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's claim, noting the separate portfolios and the AO's acceptance of long-term capital gains. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee maintained separate books and demat accounts, and the AO did not provide evidence of borrowed funds being used for investments. The Tribunal also referenced CBDT Circular No. 4/2007, which allows for separate portfolios for investment and trading. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A for Expenditure Incurred to Earn Dividend Income The AO disallowed Rs. 4,69,413/- under section 14A, attributing 10% of total expenses to earning dividend income. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance as per Rule 8D, following the ITAT Special Bench decision in Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal, however, noted the Bombay High Court's ruling in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, which held that Rule 8D is not retrospective and thus not applicable for the assessment year 2005-06. Consequently, the Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s directions unsustainable and restored the issue to the AO to reconsider the assessee's submission that no expenditure was incurred for earning the dividend income. Conclusion: The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the Tribunal upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on the disallowance of VSAT, Leaseline, and Transaction charges, and the classification of income as capital gains, while remanding the issue of disallowance under section 14A back to the AO for reconsideration.
|
