9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, both profit/loss from all share delivery transactions and derivative transactions have the same meaning as far as Section 43(5) of the Act is concerned. It thus follows that both will have the same treatment as far as application of the said section is concerned. Thus we hold that the claim of the assessee for set off of loss from share dealing should be allowed from the profits from F & O in share transactions, the character of the income being the same and also hold that before application of the Explanation to section 73, aggregation of the business profit or loss is to be worked out irrespective of the fact whether it is from share delivery transaction or derivative transactions. Income from share trading, brokerage, derivative and interest income on margin money should be considered as income derived from purchase and sale of shares and are therefore to be treated as to profit derived from speculative business as per the provision contained under Explanation to Sec. 73. - Decided against revenue Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that:- AO has invoked the provision of Sec. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the IT Rules without recording the satisfaction that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) erred in treating the speculation loss of ₹87,74,852/- as income from non-speculation business. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee in the present case is a Private Limited Company and is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) duly registered with RBI. The assessee is also a member of National Stock Exchange (NSE) and Bombay Stock Exchanges (BSE). During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer observed that has declared following sources of income under the head business :- (i) brokerage income of ₹22,07,895/- (ii) income from derivative of ₹ 91,62,100/- (iii) income from speculation business of ₹4,32,735/- (iv) income from share trading business non-speculative (-) ₹33,30,124/- (v) interest earned from Fixed Deposit of ₹51,30,351/- After careful analysis of the above income the AO opined that loss arising from business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STT 37,60,832/- Loss 87,74,852/- 30,94,24,452/- 30,94,24,452 Accordingly, AO held that the loss of ₹87,74,852/- is arising from the activity of speculation business by virtue of the provision of Explanation to Sec. 73 of the Act. Therefore the set off of the same will be allowed only against the speculation profit. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) where it was submitted that the assessee being the member of NSE and BSE is engaged in the business of capital market operations. For the accounting purposes the assessee has classified its sources of income under business head. The explanation to section 73 of the Act does not speak about treating the speculation loss for the shares trading activities in its own account or third party s account. It is also silent for the shares trading activity in the capital market segment or in derivative segments wherein the shares are the underlying assets. In the instant case the incomes of the assessee are from capital market operations involving shares trading su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transaction done by delivery as well as the transaction of derivative of shares profit/loss is not hit by section 43(5) and therefore the aggregation of share trading loss and profit from derivative transactions should be done before the application of the Explanation to Section 73. Therefore, in view of the above the appellant is entitled to set off of the share trading loss with the profit earned from derivative transactions. Respectfully, following the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Bench Kolkata, the share trading loss of ₹ 33,30,124/ is allowed to be set off with the profit in F O. therefore, this addition of ₹ 33,30,124/- as speculation loss on delivery based shares is hereby deleted. The appellant is entitled to STT expenditure of ₹ 37,60,832/- and Transaction charges of ₹ 16,83,895/- totaling to ₹ 54,44,727/- as business expenses. Therefore, the total disallowance of ₹ 87,74,852/- is allowed to be set off with the profit from derivative trading. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) Revenue is in appeal before us. Shri D.S. Damle Ld. Authorized Representative appearing on behalf of assessee and Shri Sanjit Das Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies under this segment are interrelated. In this regard, we place reliance on the following decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of ITO s Sand Dune Credit Pvt Ltd in ITA Nos. 2075 2076 /Kol / 2008 for the Asst Years 2004-05 2005-06 dated 24.4.2009 , wherein the tribunal upheld the decision of the CITA with regard to deletion of the addition under Explanation to Sec.73 by making the following observations:- I have carefully considered the submission of the ld.A.R. The assessing Office has added ₹ 10,06,974/- being loss suffered in trading in shares which was set off against brokerage income of shares of ₹ 12,90,172/-. The appellant is a share broker, registered with SEBI and its entire activity in shares is to be treated as the activity of share business whether it was by way of trading of shares and/or by way of brokerage in shares. The activity which was conducted by the appellant on a/c of other parties in which brokerage income was earned and the activity of dealing in shares in their own a/c was treated as share trading business. The entire activity has to be treated as one and as such the explanation to section 73 is not appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties and allocate respective amount of expenditure incurred for the purpose of earning the same. Since the activities are being carried out at common work place with a work force, the work staff, the expenses incurred are also common in nature. Hence, this expenses cannot be bifurcated to arrive at profit under separate heads. As such the Explanation appended to Section 73 will not be applicable in the present case. In case of ITO, C.W 2(2) Vs. GDB Share Stock Broking Service Ltd ITA No.235(Cal) of 2001 it was held that The assessee has shown brokerage income of ₹ 49.17 lacs, interest income of ₹ 1.66 lacs dividend income of ₹ 0.74 lacs. On the other hand the assessee has suffered loss of share dealing amounting to ₹ 3.97 lacs in respect of which assessing officer has attracted the explanation to Section 73. The brokerage income earned by the assessee is out of its business of purchase sale of shares and not in respect of any other activity being carried on by the assessee company. As per our considered view while arriving at the total profit on account of the said share dealing business, one has to take into account not only the profit or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that income of the assessee in the assessment order under consideration from brokerage income of share of ₹ 12,90, 172/- is more than the loss of ₹ 10,,06,974/- claimed by the assessee in respect of sale and purchase of the share by way of brokerage of share. It is recorded by the learned Tribunal further that there is no dispute to the fact that explanation to Section 73 does not apply to an investment company or a company whose principal business is banking or money lending. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) in view of the judgment of this Court [ CIT vs.Nirmal Kumar Co. ] (supra) reported in 161 ITR 413. In view of the aforesaid findings and application of law in this matter we do not think it is a fit case for admission. It is not submitted that the decision rendered in the case of [CIT vs.Nirmal Kumar Co.] reported in 161 ITR 413 (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case nor it is argued that the said decision of this Court has been overruled. Accordingly, the appeal is not admitted and the same is dismissed. The application being 1982 of 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s done by delivery as well as the transactions of derivatives are not hit by Sec.43(5) of the Act and hence the aggregation of the share trading loss and profit from derivative transactions should be done before application of the Explanation to Sec.73 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) Kolkata Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs M/s Baljit Securities Private Limited in ITA No. 1183/Kol/2012 dated 21.10.2014 for the Asst Year 2009-10, wherein it was held as below:- It is concluded that both trading of shares and derivative transactions are not coming under the purview of section 43(5) of the Act which provides definition of speculative transaction exclusively for purposes of section 28 to 41 of the Act. Again, the fact that both delivery based transaction in shares and derivative transactions are non-speculative as far as section 43(5) of the Act is concerned goes to confirm that both will have same treatment as regards application of the Explanation to section 73 is concerned, which creates a deeming fiction. Now, before application of the said Explanation, aggregation of the business profit / loss is to be worked out irrespective of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business to the extent to which the business consist of the purchase and sale of such shares In order to resolve the issue before us, the section has to be read in the manner as follows: Explanation : where any part of the business of a company ) consist in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consist of the purchase and sale of shares. It would, thus, appear that where an assessee, being the company, besides dealing in other things also deals in purchase and sale of shares of other companies, the assessee shall be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business. The assessee, in the present case, principally is a share broker, as already indicated. The assessee is also in the business of buying and selling of shares where actual delivery was not intended to be taken or given. Therefore, the entire transaction carried out by the assessee, indicated above, was within the umbrella of speculative transaction. There was, as such, no bar in setting off the loss arising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. It does not apply to the other sections of the Act. 5.7 As per the definition of section 43(5) of the Act, trading of shares which is done by taking delivery does not come under the purview of the said section. Similarly, as per clause (d) of section 43(5), derivative transaction in shares is also not speculation transaction as defined in the said section. Therefore, both profit/loss from all share delivery transactions and derivative transactions have the same meaning as far as Section 43(5) of the Act is concerned. It thus follows that both will have the same treatment as far as application of the said section is concerned. 5.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the claim of the assessee for set off of loss from share dealing should be allowed from the profits from F O in share transactions, the character of the income being the same and also hold that before application of the Explanation to section 73, aggregation of the business profit or loss is to be worked out irrespective of the fact whether it is from share delivery transaction or derivative transactions. We also find that the simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or a set off against the profit derived from the same business. 5.10 Applying the ratio of the above decision, we are of the opinion that even the brokerage income and interest income for margin money are to be considered as integral part of cash share transaction business sand come within the purview of Explanation to Section 73 as also held by this Tribunal in the case of MKM Share Broking Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO in ITA No. 1507/Kol/2005 dated 19.03.2007 by observing as under:- We have considered the aforesaid arguments of the both the sides. We find that this purchase and sale of shares with the other stock brokers and the customers constdi6tute one business of purchase and sale of shares. Our view is fortified y the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Investment Ltd. (supra) and of the Calcutta Bench of the ITAT in TIO vs. Share Stock Broking Services Ltd. (supra). As there is only one Terminal one Demat A/c one Dealer one Books of A/c one Finance, one set of staff other things and also deeming provision of Explanation to Sec. 73 does not provide any bifurcation of business of purchase and sale of shares into two, one for b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recording any dissatisfaction regarding the expenses disallowed u/s 14A of the Act has directly invoked the provision of Rule 8D of the IT Rules. The AO has disallowed the expense u/s. Rule 8D of IT Rules as under:- i) direct expenses Rs.54,44,727/- ii) interest expenses of Rs.1,98,165/- iii) .5% of average value of investment of Rs.1,15,567/- Accordingly, AO disallowed the expenses of ₹ 57,08,459/- u/s 14A of the Act and added it to the total income of assessee. 7. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition by observing as under:- 14. The facts relating to payment of interest of this case are same. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon ble ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of DCIT v. M/s Trade Apartment Ltd . (supra), it is held that interest expenses cannot be disallowed under Rule 8D(2)(ii) in the case of the appellant. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed by holding disallowance of ₹ 38,156/- disallowed itself by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 14A, if the AO proposes to invoke the section 14A, he is to record a satisfaction on that issue. This satisfaction cannot be a plain satisfaction or a simple note. It is to be done with regard to accounts of the assessee. In the present case, there is no satisfaction by the AO and consequently, in view of the decision of the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Balarampur Chini ITA No.144/Kol/2013-A-AM M/s. Binani Industries Ltd 11 Mills Ltd. referred to supra, no disallowance under section 14A can be made. From the discussion of above facts and circumstances and relying on various case laws, in our considered view, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Hence, ground of Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Now coming to the CO. 54/Kol/2013. 10. The assessee raised the following ground of its cross objections, which are reproduced below:- 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating Ground No. 4 in which the appellant had objected to AO's decision of not granting std-off for brokerage income against the loss incurred in purchase sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
