2014 (9) TMI 435 - HC - Income Tax

Nature of transaction Investment or trading - Whether the transaction was rightly held by the Tribunal to be in the nature of investment and not in the nature of trade Held that - Tribunal has noted that the assessee in the balance-sheet had treated the mutual funds as investments and never classified its investment in securities as stock-in-trade - The assessee company was not an investment company - The objective of the assessee company do not include activities relating to purchase or sales of shares rather, permitted to investment and deal with the money not immediately required in such a manner as may from time to time be determined Tribunal has not taken into consideration the facts as noted by the AO and also CIT(A) Tribunal was required to determine the cumulative effect of all the facts, including whether any dividend had been received on the units, the frequency of 26 transactions and volume of the transactions - Entries in the books of account, would normally reflect treatment given by the assessee - the actual intention and manner in which transaction of sale and purchase is to be concerned - Intention has reference to practical and empirical side of the de facto and functional aspects thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication relying upon Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rewashanker A. Kothari 2006 (1) TMI 80 - GUJARAT High Court Decided in favour of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the transaction in question was rightly held by the Tribunal to be in the nature of investment and not in the nature of trade?

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 where the respondent assessee, engaged in retail trade in periodicals and books, declared income from the sale of units of mutual funds as short-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer treated this income as business income based on various factors, including the absence of dividend income, short holding periods, and the nature of the company's business activities. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the ITAT ruled in favor of the respondent assessee, categorizing the profits from the sale of units of mutual funds as capital gains, not business income. The ITAT emphasized that the treatment of transactions in the books of accounts is crucial and noted that the respondent assessee had shown the shares and units as investments, not stock in trade. This decision was supported by the Memorandum and Articles of Association, indicating the intention to invest rather than trade.

The High Court noted the complexity of determining whether the mutual funds were held for investment or sold for business income. Referring to the tests formulated by the Gujarat High Court, the High Court emphasized factors such as initial acquisition intent, treatment in books of accounts, continuity of transactions, and the company's objectives. The High Court observed that the ITAT did not consider all relevant facts highlighted by the authorities, such as dividend receipts, transaction frequency, and sources of funds. Therefore, the High Court remanded the matter back to the ITAT for a fresh adjudication, instructing a detailed analysis of all pertinent facts and the application of the tests laid down by the Gujarat High Court and CBDT circular.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ITAT's order and ordering a remand for a fresh assessment. The High Court clarified that it neither affirmed nor negated the facts noted by the lower authorities, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive evaluation based on all relevant factors and legal guidelines.