9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 479 - AT - Income TaxTreatment of capital gain/loss as business gain/loss - Held that - As in earlier year similar transactions were treated by the ITAT as transactions of investment giving rise capital gains/loss. Furthermore Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Radials International (2014 (5) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT) has held that investment activity through PMS agreement doesn t given arise to business activity of making profit. Hence we hold that assessee s investment activity cannot be held to be business activity. Accordingly the gain/loss on account of share transactions are to be assessed under the head of capital gains. Accordingly, we set aside orders of authorities below, and decide the issue in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s. 14A - Held that - On issue of disallowance u/s.14A earlier the tribunal has remitted the issue to the file of the A.O with certain directions. On the facts of the circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion the issue in the present appeals also need to be remitted to the file of the A.O with similar directions. Both the counsel fairly aggrieved to this proposition. Accordingly respectfully following precedent from tribunal in assessee s own case as above we remit the issue to the file of A.O with similar direction to examine the issue accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of income from sale of mutual funds and shares as long-term capital gain versus business income. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Treatment of business loss versus short-term capital loss. 4. Prior period expenses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Treatment of Income from Sale of Mutual Funds and Shares: The primary issue revolves around whether the income from the sale of mutual funds and shares should be treated as long-term capital gain or business income. The revenue contended that since the assessee is engaged in trading shares, the income should be classified as business income. However, the CIT(A) treated the income as long-term capital gain. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09, where it was held that the assessee's transactions were investments and not trading activities. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Radials International vs. ACIT, which held that gains from shares under Portfolio Management Services (PMS) should be treated as capital gains. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, treating the income as long-term capital gain. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A: The issue pertains to the disallowance of expenses under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. For the assessment year 2009-10, the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of ?35,00,355/-, while for 2010-11, the CIT(A) made an adhoc disallowance of ?65,11,822/-. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not follow the guidelines of objective satisfaction as laid down by the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., which requires the AO to record reasons for dissatisfaction with the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO with directions to re-examine the computation made by the assessee and to record reasons if the AO disagrees with the assessee's calculations. 3. Treatment of Business Loss versus Short-Term Capital Loss: The assessee declared a short-term capital loss of ?3,15,58,406/- and long-term capital gain of ?2,16,114/-. The AO treated the loss as a business loss, arguing that the frequency and volume of transactions indicated that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading shares. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the Tribunal referred to its previous decision and the Delhi High Court ruling, which supported the assessee's claim of treating the transactions as investments. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities through PMS should be considered as investments, thus treating the loss as a short-term capital loss. 4. Prior Period Expenses: The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ?1,46,712/- as prior period expenses, which were crystallized during the year under consideration. The Tribunal did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment. Conclusion: The Tribunal's judgment resulted in the following outcomes: - The revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 was partly allowed for statistical purposes. - The revenue's appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 was dismissed. - The assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 was allowed. - The assessee's appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 was allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 03.05.2017.
|
