9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1813 - HC - Income TaxMAT computation - deemed agricultural income under Section 10 on proceeds from the sale of agricultural land and rubber trees - granted exemption from computation of income as per Section 115JB of the Act - HELD THAT - We see that the Assessing Officer had considered the aspect and ruled against the assessee. However the Tribunal has not considered this specific issue and had merely followed the decision in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. own case to grant exemption to the profit received on sale of estate from computation of the book profits. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the aforesaid appeals have to be remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the issue afresh. Disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund and Welfare Fund made under Section 36(1) (va) and Section 224(1) - HELD THAT - Issue answered the question against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue in Popular Vehicles and Service (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2018 (8) TMI 133 - KERALA HIGH COURT . Hence the aforesaid question has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Sale of Boyce Estate to be treated as capital gain u/s 50B - Sale of going concern or slump sale - HELD THAT - The liabilities were not sold and the sale agreement did not include investments and deposits was the clear finding of the Tribunal. All the investments deposits receivables stock and such other current assets in the form of financial and other assets remained with the assessee Company along with the liabilities. Only those assets enumerated in the Schedules and Annexure were sold to the vendee. The consideration had also been specifically assigned to the sale of immovable property and separate consideration has been assigned to the sale of movable properties including vehicles buildings and so on and so forth. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact by the Tribunal that there is no case of slump sale for a lumpsum consideration. However the consideration is not attributable to any particular item of asset. We hence decline to answer the question framed for reason of the findings of facts being unassailable raising no question of law. Speculation loss allowability - Tribunal found that the assessee had held the shares as an investment and not as a stock in trade. The loss arising out of the sale of shares would hence be in the nature of capital loss and not in the nature of speculation loss - HELD THAT - Findings of tribunal are clear finding. There was also no evidence on record to show that the assessee was indulging in the business of buying and selling of shares. The shares held by the assessee Company were clearly investments and on finding no dispute on facts the Tribunal directed it to be treated as capital gains. Again we refuse to answer the third question raised for reason of the Tribunal having answered it on facts and there arising no question of law. When the third question is thus answered in favour of the assessee necessarily the fourth question also in the matter of set off has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Disallowance invoking the provisions of Sections 37 and 14A of the IT Act being re-plantation expenses - HELD THAT - The decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that the applicability of Section 14A can only be from the assessment year 2007-08 has to be noticed. We hence answer the question in favour of the assessee . Treating the consideration received on sale of shade trees as long term capital loss entitled to be carried forward from the earlier years - HELD THAT - We see that the Tribunal had considered the facts and had held that the order of the CIT (Appeals) directing deletion of such deduction in the capital gains has to be set aside on facts. The Tribunal has also held that it being long term capital loss, is entitled to be carried forward. We do not see any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal and hence uphold the order to that extent. Revision u/s 263 - income from the sale of old rubber trees - HELD THAT - The decision to treat it as subjected to Central Income Tax would go contrary to the findings of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Thiruvambadi Rubber Company 2011 (6) TMI 452 - KERALA HIGH COURT . We hence do not think that any interference can be caused to the order of the Tribunal on that count. Indexation allowed of sale proceeds of Grevellea trees - the Tribunal has found that the said issue was the subject matter of an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and then before the Tribunal. Under Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 263(1) since the issue was subject matter of appeal there could not have been any suo motu power exercised by the Commissioner under Section 263. We are in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal and we answer the question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A - As already held following the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Essar Teleholdings Ltd. that the same would be applicable only from 2007-08. We hence answer the said issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer of shares - HELD THAT - Tribunal has found that as a matter of fact the said expenses have been incurred in connection with the maintenance of share-holders register. The Tribunal has relied on the instructions issued by the CBDT vide F.No.10/25/63-IT(A.a) dated 18.06.1964 wherein it was clarified that the remuneration paid by the Company to its Registrar for performing duties in connection with the Company s legal obligations to be discharged under the Company Law should be regarded as revenue expenditure . We do not think that the finding on the said issue also calls for any interference.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether proceeds from the sale of agricultural land and rubber trees can be deemed agricultural income under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act and exempt from computation of income under Section 115JB. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance of employees' contributions to Provident Fund and Welfare Fund made under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 224(1) of the Act. 3. Whether the sale of Boyce Estate should be treated as capital gain under Section 50B of the Income Tax Act. 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the CIT(A)'s order that long-term capital loss on the sale of shares was assessable as speculation loss. 5. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing the set-off of long-term capital gains on the sale of land with long-term capital loss on the sale of shares. 6. Whether the Tribunal was correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition made by the AO under Sections 37 and 14A of the IT Act, regarding re-plantation expenses. 7. Whether the Tribunal was justified in treating the consideration received on the sale of shade trees as long-term capital loss. 8. Whether the Tribunal was correct in interfering with the Commissioner's order under Section 263 of the IT Act regarding income from the sale of old rubber trees, indexation allowed on the sale proceeds of Grevillea trees, proportionate interest paid related to investment in subsidiary companies disallowable under Section 14A, and disallowance of expenses claimed under "share transfer expenses". Detailed Analysis: 1. Agricultural Income and Section 115JB: The court considered whether proceeds from the sale of agricultural land and rubber trees could be deemed agricultural income under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act and exempt from computation under Section 115JB. The court followed the precedent set in Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin v. Thiruvambadi Rubber Factory Limited, where it was held that proceeds from old and unyielding rubber trees do not constitute agricultural income. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption. 2. Disallowance of Employees' Contributions: The Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of employees' contributions to Provident Fund and Welfare Fund under Section 36(1)(va) and Section 224(1) was contested. The court referenced its decision in Popular Vehicles and Service (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, concluding that the question should be answered in favor of the Revenue. 3. Sale of Boyce Estate: The court examined whether the sale of Boyce Estate should be treated as capital gain under Section 50B. The Tribunal had found that the sale was not of a going concern but of specific assets. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that it was not a slump sale and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings. 4. Long-term Capital Loss as Speculation Loss: The Tribunal had overturned the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the long-term capital loss from the sale of shares as speculation loss. The court noted that the shares were held as investments and not as stock in trade, supporting the Tribunal's decision to treat the loss as a capital loss. The court found no reason to challenge the Tribunal's factual findings. 5. Set-off of Long-term Capital Gains: Given the Tribunal's decision on the nature of the loss from the sale of shares, the court also upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the set-off of long-term capital gains on the sale of land with the long-term capital loss on the sale of shares. 6. Re-plantation Expenses: The Tribunal had confirmed the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition made by the AO under Sections 37 and 14A regarding re-plantation expenses. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., which limited the applicability of Section 14A to assessment years from 2007-08 onwards, thus ruling in favor of the assessee. 7. Sale of Shade Trees: The Tribunal had treated the consideration received from the sale of shade trees as long-term capital loss. The court found no question of law arising from the Tribunal's factual findings and upheld the Tribunal's decision. 8. Interference with Commissioner's Order under Section 263: The Tribunal had interfered with the Commissioner's order under Section 263 regarding various issues. The court agreed with the Tribunal's findings that the issues of income from the sale of old rubber trees and indexation on the sale proceeds of Grevillea trees were correctly decided. The court also upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the disallowance under Section 14A and the expenses claimed under "share transfer expenses," finding no reason to interfere. Conclusion: The court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on most issues, ruling in favor of the Revenue on certain points and the assessee on others. The appeals were partly allowed and partly dismissed, with specific issues remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
|
