Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter:

CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 26, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 5, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
Capital Gains vs. Business Profits: Merely holding shares for a short period will not convert capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that investment held for less than 12 months is to be termed as short term capital gain. If the assessee has two portfolios, one for "Investment" and other for "Trading" and if the investments are out of own funds and not borrowed funds, the gains have to be assessed as STCG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.485 OF 2016

Pr.Commissioner of Income-Tax-II … Appellant
V/s.
M/s Viksit Engineering Ltd. … Respondent

Mr.Ashok Kotangle for the Appellant.

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI AND
M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2018.

P.C.:-

1. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenges the order dated 8 th July, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. Mr.Kotangle, learned counsel to the Revenue urges the following brief question of law:-

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in holding that the gain made on sale of shares is Priya Soparkar 2 14 itxa 485-16-o to be classified as short term capital gain and not as business income?”

3. In the subject assessment year the Respondent in its return of income claimed short term capital gain of Rs.9.42 crores. During the assessment proceedings the Respondent was called upon to show cause as to why the income shown as short term capital gain should not be treated as business income. The Respondent pointed out that its regular business is to trade in engineering goods, metal and other commodities. It has also made investments in shares over the last 10 to 15 years out of its own funds i.e. without any borrowings and loans. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the same on the ground that all the scrips in respect of which the short term capital was gained was held for a very short period i.e. purchased and sold during the year.

4. Being aggrieved the Respondent carried the issue in appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)(CIT (A)) but without success.

5. On further appeal to the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 8th July, 2015, the appeal was allowed. This after examining the facts and finding that in its Balance-sheet and profit and loss account the respondent had separately shown trading in shares, long term capital gains and profits from business.

It further records the fact that in this case the gains on account of short term capital gain i.e. the investments held for a period of less than 12 months arises on account of the fact that a prudent investor keep a watch on the market and liquidates its investment as and when necessary.

It records the fact that the law itself provides that such gain may be brought to tax under the head short term capital gain when the shares are held for a period of less than 12 months. It also records that fact that for earlier years, the Assessing Officer had accepted the claim made under the head short term capital gain in respect of purchase and sale of shares.

6. Mr.Kotangle, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the appeal ought to be admitted as the amounts involved are large. Besides the profit claimed under the head short term capital gain are all on account of purchase and sale of shares during the assessment year.

7. We note the fact, that the issue of classification of income on sale of shares as business income or as short term capital gains is to be decided the facts of each case. The tests to be applied for such determination is provided in CBDT Circular No.4 of 2007.

We note that the Tribunal kept in mind the tests as provided in the above Circular in the context of the facts and found is that these investments were out of its own funds and not borrowed funds, further it maintained a distinction between trading in shares and investments.

Thus two port-folios one for “Investment” and other for “Trading”. Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short period, will not convert the capital gain into business income. This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that when the investment is held for less than 12 months, it is to be termed as short term capital gain. Moreover, the impugned order of the Tribunal also in the present facts correctly placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gopal Purohit1.

8. In the above facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts is a possible view. Thus, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained.

9. Accordingly, appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

(M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.)

2 comments on “CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court)
  1. vswami says:

    To Re-share (:

    Random picks , for comment (:
    “…….
    Tribunal kept in mind the tests AS PROVIDED IN THE CIRCULAR ……”

    “…Moreover, the impugned order of the Tribunal also in the present facts CORRECTLY PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT.”

    “In the above facts, the view taken by the Tribunal on the facts IS A POSSIBLE VIEW. Hence, the question as proposed does NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW thus not entertained”

    (FONT to focus)

    REFER [2006]153 TAXMAN 126 (ART)
    BUSINESS INCOME
    SHARES/STOCKS – CAPITAL ASSET OR STOCK – IN -TRADE ? – A FRESH LOOK

    In the opening para. therein, are referred to,- the CBDT’s instruction No. 1827 dated 31-8-1989, then followed by a fresh circular F. No. 149/287/2005-TPL,

    Unclear reference made in the instant case is to which of the two circu;lars.

    Be that as it may, recommend to go through the detailed discussion of the subject matter, wprt interalia the legislative intent as borne out by the special definitions in the Act vide sec 2 (13) and (14) , respectively of the crucial terms ”business’ and ‘capital asset’. As stressed and substantiated more than adequaely, in that Article, , the Tribunal’s view, as upheld by the HC in the instant case might have to be agreed/ conceded to be the one and only correct view ; not just a ‘possible vlew’ as opined by the HC.

    courtesy

  2. vswami says:

    To ADD: On further probe, it has come to be noted that the HC decision under reference, and followed- in re. CIT vs. Gopal Purohit.- has become final , as the SC has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the referred judgment of Bombay High Court.

    As such, the dspute may have to be taken to have been finally settled; provided in any given case, the factual matrix is on all fours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*