2016 (7) TMI 1087 - HC - Income Tax

Profit of sale of share - capital gain or business income - Held that - In the present case, the peculiar facts are that the investment made was shown as investment and the cost was reflected throughout in the balance sheet and it was never treated as stock-in-trade. Further, if it was to be treated as stock-in-trade and the market value plus cost would have been considered, but such was not treated accordingly by the assessee in the books of accounts. There was also lock-in period for holding of the shares. Under these circumstances, the view taken by CIT (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal, would not call for interference holding that the assessing authority is not right in treating profit derived of ₹ 10,66,425/- on sale of shares under the head business income and not under the head capital gains

Summary

Issues:

1. Interpretation of whether profit from the sale of shares should be categorized as business income or capital gains.

Analysis:

The core issue in this case revolves around determining the appropriate categorization of the profit derived from the sale of shares by the assessee. The primary question raised is whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the profit of ?10,66,425 on the sale of shares should be treated as business income rather than capital gains. The assessing authority initially treated the profit as business income based on the intention of the assessee to make a profit through investments in shares and being a trader in stocks. However, the CIT (Appeals) disagreed with this classification and directed the assessing officer to treat the income from the sale of shares as long-term capital gains. The CIT (Appeals) based this decision on the fact that the investment was made using the company's funds, consistently shown as investments at cost value, and not as stock-in-trade.

Upon further appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals), emphasizing that the assessing officer failed to provide reasons for not accepting the assessee's contention that the shares were not acquired using borrowed funds and were consistently held as investments valued at cost. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessing officer did not rebut this claim with any evidence to the contrary, there was no basis to interfere with the CIT (Appeals) decision.

The appellant-revenue attempted to argue that the income should be treated as business income based on a Supreme Court decision, but the Court highlighted a similar case previously considered by them where the treatment of income as business income or investment income was contingent on factual aspects and the nature of the income earned from the property. In the present case, the investment in shares was consistently reflected as such in the balance sheet, not treated as stock-in-trade, and there was a lock-in period for holding the shares. Considering these factors, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, citing that no substantial question of law arose for consideration based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court also referenced relevant legal precedents to support their decision, including a Supreme Court case and decisions from other High Courts.

This detailed analysis showcases the meticulous examination of the facts and legal principles involved in determining the appropriate characterization of income derived from the sale of shares in this particular case.