9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 761 - AT - Income TaxClassification of head of income On sale of shares and securities, whether the income accrue as Long term capital gain , short term capital gains or as business income - The assessee is a private family trust - The Assessing Officer found enormous volume, periodicity, frequency and multiplicity of transactions of purchase and sale in shares and securities Held that - For the method of valuation of stock of shares reflected in the balance sheet, the admitted position is that the assessee has not adopted the method of valuation as being generally adopted by a business concern. A business asset is valued at the cost or market price whichever is less but in the assessee s case, it is not so. The assessee has not adopted the prevalent method rather the investments have been shown at cost price only - The most important factor which has been ignored by the lower authorities is that there are no borrowed funds. The entire investments have come out of the corpus fund of the assessee Therefore, to say that assessee is carrying on business activities in the guise of share investment does not hold any water - Considering the nature of transaction through Portfolio Management Services providers, the transactions have resulted into capital gains, STCG and LTCG as returned by the assessee Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of gains from sale of shares as "Business Income" or "Capital Gains". 2. Assessment of the role and impact of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) on the nature of transactions. 3. Evaluation of the volume, frequency, and holding period of transactions. 4. Consideration of judicial precedents and CBDT guidelines. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Classification of Gains: The primary issue in this case was whether the gains from the sale of shares should be treated as "Business Income" or "Capital Gains". The assessee, a private family trust, reported Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs. 5,97,26,574/- and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 8,91,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) reclassified these gains as "Business Income" based on the volume, periodicity, frequency, and multiplicity of transactions. The AO argued that the transactions were carried out regularly and frequently, indicating a business activity rather than an investment. 2. Role of Portfolio Management Services (PMS): The assessee had appointed Portfolio Managers to manage investments, arguing that the intention was to invest for wealth creation, not to trade. The AO and the CIT(A) did not accept this explanation, asserting that the transactions' nature and the involvement of PMS indicated business activity. However, the Tribunal found that the agreements with PMS providers explicitly stated that the investments were for wealth creation and not for speculative trading. The Tribunal noted that decisions regarding investments were made by the PMS providers, not by the assessee directly. 3. Volume, Frequency, and Holding Period: The AO and CIT(A) emphasized the large volume and frequency of transactions. However, the Tribunal noted that the average holding period was 178 days, which could be consistent with an investment strategy rather than trading. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee transacted in only seven shares through four PMS providers, totaling 110 transactions, which was not excessive in the context of stock market operations. 4. Judicial Precedents and CBDT Guidelines: The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents and CBDT guidelines. It referenced cases where investments through PMS were treated as capital gains rather than business income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) heavily relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench in a similar case but noted that the facts differed significantly. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee's investments were made from the corpus fund without borrowing, further supporting the claim of investment rather than business activity. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities erred in classifying the gains as "Business Income". It held that the transactions through PMS resulted in capital gains, both STCG and LTCG, as reported by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the AO to accept the capital gains as returned by the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal.
|
