2014 (12) TMI 846 - HC - Income Tax

Loss incurred on sale of shares business loss or not - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the loss incurred on the sale of shares of Camelot a wholly owned subsidiary was a business loss when the investment made in the latter was not a business asset, but investment for obtaining an enduring benefit Held that - The Commissioner and the Tribunal concurrently found that the Camelot was fully owned subsidiary of the assessee and engaged in the manufacturing of tooth brushes exclusively for the sole client namely the assessee - Shares purchased of Camelot were also sold by the Assessee to one Ramesh Sukharam Vaidya for consideration of ₹ 45,00,000/- merely because it was made in the normal course of business, it cannot be termed as anything but long term investment - since the Assessee was relying on Camelot for manufacturing of tooth brushes to be traded by the assessee, the investment is nothing but a measure of commercial expediency to further business objectives and primarily related to the business operations of the Assessee - at no point of time the investment in Camelot was made with an intention to realize any enhancement value thereof or to earn dividend income - the investment was made to separately house the integral part of the business activity thus, the loss of ₹ 5.50 crores is a business loss in the hands of the Assessee the order of the Tribunal is upheld Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss incurred on the sale of shares of a wholly owned subsidiary was a business loss or not.
2. Whether the cessation of sales tax liability is liable to be brought to tax.
3. Whether the interest leviable on the excess refund paid to the company should be deleted.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Loss on Sale of Shares
The main issue revolved around determining whether the loss incurred on the sale of shares of a wholly owned subsidiary was a business loss. The Assessee argued that the investment in the subsidiary was made for business purposes, thus the loss should be treated as a business loss. The Commissioner and Tribunal agreed that the investment in the subsidiary was primarily for business reasons and to further business objectives. They concluded that the loss of the investment amount was indeed a business loss in the hands of the Assessee. The Tribunal extensively analyzed the issue and upheld the Commissioner's conclusion, stating that the investment was made for commercial expediency and related to the business operations of the Assessee. The High Court agreed with this view, stating that given the circumstances and nature of the investment, the decision was not perverse and did not raise any substantial question of law.

Issue 2: Cessation of Sales Tax Liability
The question regarding the cessation of sales tax liability was already addressed in a previous judgment related to another case. The judgment concluded that the cessation of sales tax liability is not liable to be brought to tax under a specific section of the Income Tax Act. This issue was settled in favor of the Assessee based on the previous judgment.

Issue 3: Interest Leviable on Excess Refund
The issue of interest leviable on the excess refund paid to the company was also discussed. The judgment from a previous case answered this question, stating that the interest leviable under a particular section of the Income Tax Act should not be deleted. The High Court referred to this previous judgment and dismissed the Appeal in terms of that judgment.

In conclusion, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal regarding the loss on the sale of shares issue, dismissed the Appeal concerning the cessation of sales tax liability, and dismissed the Appeal on the interest leviable on the excess refund issue based on previous judgments and the specific circumstances of each issue.

← Previous Next →