2020 (10) TMI 252 - HC - Income Tax

Correct head of income - Capital Gain or business income - surplus on sale of shares and securities - HELD THAT - CIT(A) and the Tribunal both have come to the conclusion that the assessee has continuously treated the transaction in shares and securities as investment and in view of the aforesaid Circulars issued by the CBDT, when the assessee has opted to treat the shares and securities as investment and offered capital gains/loss arising from such transaction to tax then the Assessing Officer cannot dispute the same. When there are concurrent findings of fact that the assessee has maintained distinction between trading assets and nontrading assets and has treated the transaction in shares and securities as investment then, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the same as business transaction so as to treat the surplus as business income.- Decided against revenue. Disallowance of interest expenses u/s 14A - Tribunal deleted the addition - HELD THAT - The condition precedent of recording the requisite satisfaction which is a safeguard provided in Section 14A should not be overlooked before going to Rule 8. In such circumstances we are not impressed by the submission canvassed on behalf of the Revenue that once there are mixed funds, Rule8 would be attracted automatically. Tribunal committed no error in passing the impugned order. The issues raised in these Tax Appeals are covered by various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court.- Decided against revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from the sale of shares and securities as capital gain or business income.
2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding professional charges and interest expenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Income from Sale of Shares and Securities:

The primary issue was whether the surplus arising from the sale of shares and securities should be classified as capital gain or business income. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the profits from the sale of shares and securities as business income, citing the high volume and frequency of transactions, and the fact that the investment in shares and securities exceeded the investment in the assessee's gas manufacturing business. The AO relied on various judicial precedents and CBDT instructions to support this classification.

The CIT(A) disagreed, holding that the transactions were investments made for better utilization of surplus funds and not for trading purposes. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee had consistently shown these transactions as investments in its books of accounts, valued them at cost, and not as stock-in-trade. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee did not claim any deduction under Section 88E for securities transaction tax, indicating that the transactions were not business activities.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the intention at the time of purchase, treatment in the books of accounts, and the nature of the transactions supported the classification as investments. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circulars No. 4/2007 and No. 6/2016, which provided guidelines for distinguishing between capital assets and trading assets. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's treatment of shares as investments and the absence of borrowed funds for these investments further supported the classification as capital gains.

2. Disallowance under Section 14A:

The AO made disallowances under Section 14A for professional charges and interest expenses, arguing that these were related to earning tax-free income. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of professional fees but reduced the disallowance for interest expenses, noting that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds to cover the investments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had failed to demonstrate a direct nexus between the interest expenses and the investments. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had sufficient interest-free funds and that the AO's formula-based disallowance was not justified. The Tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, which required the AO to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before making disallowances under Section 14A.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the tax appeals, agreeing with the Tribunal's findings. The Court noted that the assessee had consistently treated the transactions as investments and that the AO had not provided sufficient evidence to classify the income as business income. The Court also upheld the Tribunal's decision on the disallowance under Section 14A, emphasizing the need for the AO to record satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim. The Court concluded that the issues raised did not constitute substantial questions of law.

← Previous Next →