9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 697 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of valuation loss on conversion of shares into stock-in-trade Held that - The assessee has not done any trading in the immediate past assessment year nor during the year under consideration - This conduct of the assessee of converting Long term investment into stock in trade is not backed by any commercial prudence or justifiable cause - The assessee has not brought any cogent material evidence on record even subsequent to the year under consideration to show that it has done some trading or business in shares - legitimate tax planning is not barred - the conduct of the assessee clearly suggest that his only intention was to create artificial loss by converting investment in stock in trade and setting it off against the bad debts recovered Thus, the loss on the valuation of stock as on 31.3.2007 is nothing but an artificial loss which deserves to be ignored and the AO has not given any cognizance to this loss - The AO is directed to treat the loss as an artificial loss Decided against Assessee. Deletion made u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules Held that - Rule 8D is prospective and is applicable with effect from A.Y. 2008-09 Thus, the CIT(A) has rightly held that Rule 8D is not applicable order of the CIT(A) upheld Decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of valuation loss on conversion of shares into stock-in-trade. 2. Disallowance of addition under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The primary issue in this case was the disallowance of a valuation loss on the conversion of shares into stock-in-trade. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee, a share and stock broker, had converted shares into stock-in-trade resulting in a claimed loss of Rs. 1,83,75,418. The AO considered this conversion a tax evasion tactic and disallowed the claimed loss. The AO relied on legal precedents and completed the assessment, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) found no justifiable reason for the conversion and concluded that it was a means to reduce tax liability by setting off the valuation loss against recovered bad debts. Issue 1 Analysis Continued: The assessee argued that tax planning is a legitimate practice and cited relevant judgments to support their position. However, the Tribunal analyzed the conduct of the assessee and found that the conversion lacked commercial prudence and was aimed at creating an artificial loss to evade taxes. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities, disregarded the claimed loss, and directed the AO to treat it as an artificial loss for tax computation purposes. Issue 2: The second issue concerned the addition made under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act. The AO disallowed Rs. 12,17,514 as per Rule 8D for the exempt dividend income earned by the assessee. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that Rule 8D was not applicable for the relevant assessment year and directed the AO to recompute the disallowance under section 14A without invoking Rule 8D. Issue 2 Analysis Continued: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision, but the Tribunal upheld the ruling, emphasizing that Rule 8D was prospective and not applicable for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s directive to recompute the disallowance under section 14A without invoking Rule 8D. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals, maintaining the disallowance of the valuation loss on share conversion and rejecting the application of Rule 8D for the disallowance under section 14A. The judgment highlighted the importance of genuine commercial transactions and legitimate tax planning practices while scrutinizing attempts to create artificial losses for tax evasion purposes.
|
