DCIT CC- 2(3), , MUMBAI V. SHRI AVINASH N. BHOSALE, PUNE

ITA 1436/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0413 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Earning of tax free income; Cost of acquisition; Rule 8D; Capital Gains
• Section: 6; 10; 2(14); 14A; 250; 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA no.1436/Mum./2020 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(3), Mumbai ................ Appellant v/s Shri Avinash N. Bhosale 2, Abil House, Ganeshhind Road Range Hill Corner, Pune 411 007 PAN – ABTPB8151F ................ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by : Shri Mehul Jain Date of Hearing – 16.06.2022 Date of Order – 05/07/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 31/10/2019, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds: “1. Whether the face and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of brought forward long term capital loss set off Rs.4,18,24,374/– on Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 2 which STT was paid and covered under provisions of u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt income. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the in law, the Ld CITA) erred in restricting the addition on account of 14A to Rs. 24,39,736 from Rs. 40,03,040, when assessee was not maintaining any bifurcation in respect of the taxable income and tax free income. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of Helicopter/aircraft charges to 1/7 instead of 1/4th made by the AO without considering the maximum uses of helicopter/aircraft for personal use by assessee and by his family member. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the AO on account of Software License Charge without considering the capital nature of the transactions. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend and/or to alter any of the grounds of appeal, if need be. 6. The Appellant, therefore, prays that on the grounds stated above, the order of the CIT(A)- 48, Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.” 3. When this appeal was called for hearing, the learned Representative appearing for the parties fairly agreed that the issues arising in the present appeal are covered by the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal rendered in assessee’s own case in DCIT v/s Avinash Nivruttti Bhosale, in ITA no.123 & 245/Mum./2021, etc., for the assessment year 2015–16 and 2016–17, etc., vide order dated 11/01/2022. 4. The issue arising in ground no.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal is pertaining to carry forward and set–off of long term capital loss incurred on transaction of sale of equity shares, which is subject to payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 3 5. We find that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra decided similar issue by observing as under:– “10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the assessee has claimed carryf orward of long term capital loss which assessee has incurred by making investment in M/s. Reliance Power Limited and this transaction involves the STT which assessee has paid while transfer of the above shares. No doubt the profit which assessee would have earned will be exempt from tax u/s. 10(38) of the Act. However, we observe from the submissions of both the parties and in our considered view the facts in the case relied by the Ld.CIT(A) in ACIT v. Smt Gauri AvinashB hosale (supra) and M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Mumbai v. DCIT (supra) are exactly same, for the sake of brevity we reproduce the extract in the case of M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Mumbai v. DCIT (supra): - “7. We have heard rival submissions and perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders. The main issue before us is, whether Long term capital loss on sale of equity shares can be set off against Long term capital gain arising on sale of land or not, as the income from Long term capital gain on sale of such shares are exempt u/s. 10(38). The nature of income here in this case is from sale of Long term capital asset, which are equity shares in a company and unit of an equity oriented fund which is chargeable to STT. First of all, Long term capital gain has been defined under section 2(39A), as capital gains arising from transfer of a Long term capital asset. Section 2(14) defines “Capital asset” and various exceptions and exclusions have been provided which are not treated as capital asset. Section 45 is the charging section for any profits or gain arising from a transfer of a capital asset in the previous year i.e. taxability of capital gains. Section 47 enlists various exceptions and transactions which are not treated as transfer for the purpose of capital gain u/s. 45. The mode of computation to arrive at capital gain or loss has been enumerated from sections 48 to 55. Further sub section (3) of section 70 and section 71 provides for set off of loss in respect of capital gain. 8. From the conjoint reading and plain understanding of all these sections it can be seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no exception has been carved out in section 2(14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they are not treated as capital asset. Secondly, any gains arising from transfer of Long term capital asset is treated as capital gain which is chargeable u/s. 45; thirdly, section 47 does not enlist any such exception that transfer of long term equity shares/funds are not treated as transfer for the purpose of section 45 and section 48 provides for computation of capital gain, which is arrived at after deducting cost of acquisition i.e. cost of any improvement and expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of capital asset, even for arriving of gain in transfer of equity shares; lastly, section 70 & 71 elaborates the mechanism for set off of capital gain. Nowhere, any exception has been made/ carved out with regard to Long term capital gain arising on sale of equity shares. The whole genre of income under the head capital gain on transfer of shares is a source, which is taxable under the Act. If the entire source is exempt or is considered as not to be included while computing the total income then in such a case, the profit or loss resulting from such a source do not enter into the computation at all. However, if a part of the source is exempt by virtue of particular “provision” of the Act for providing benefit to the assessee, then in our considered view it cannot be held that the entire source will not enter into computation of total income. In our view, the concept of income including loss will apply only when the entire source is exempt and not in the cases where only one particular stream of income falling within a source is falling within exempt provisions. Section 10(38) Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 4 provides exemption of income only from transfer of Long term equity shares and equity oriented fund and not only that, there are certain conditions stipulated for exempting such income i.e. payment of security transaction tax and whether the transaction on sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after the date on which chapter VII of Finance (No.2) Act 2004 comes into force. If such conditions are not fulfilled then exemption is not given. Thus, the income contemplated in section 10(38) is only a part of the source of capital gain on shares and only a limited portion of source is treated as exempt and not the entire capital gain (on sale of shares). If an equity share is sold within the period of twelve months then it is chargeable to tax and only if it falls within the definition of Long term capital asset and, further fulfils the conditions mentioned in subsection (38) of section 10 then only such portion of income is treated as exempt. There are further instances like debt oriented securities and equity shares where STT is not paid, then gain or profit from such shares are taxable. Section 10 provides that certain income are not to be included while computing the total income of the assessee and in such a case the profit or loss resulting from such a source of income do not enter into computation at all. However, a distinction has been drawn where the entire source of income is exempt or only a part of source is exempt. Here it needs to be seen whether section 10(38) is source of income which does not enter into computation at all or is a part of the source, the income in respect of which is excluded in the computation of total income. For instance, if the assessee has income from Short term capital gain on sale of shares; Long term capital gain on debt funds; and Long term capital gain from sale of equity shares, then while computing the taxable income, the whole of income would be computed in the total income and only the portion of Long term capital gain on sale of equity shares would be removed from the taxable income as the same is exempt u/s 10(38). This precise issue had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club, wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed that “under the Income tax Act 1961 there are certain incomes which do not enter into the computation of the total income at all. In computing the total income of a resident assessee, certain incomes are not included under s.10 of the Act. It depends on the particular case; where the Act is made inapplicable to income from a certain source under the scheme of the Act, the profit and loss resulting from such a source will not enter into the computation at all. But there are other sources which, for certain economic reasons, are not included or excluded by the will of the Legislature. In such a case, one must look to the specific exclusion that has been made.” The Hon’ble High Court was besieged with the following question “Whether under s.10(27) read with s.70 of the I.T.Act, 1961, was the assessee entitled to set off the loss on the two heads, namely, Broodmares Account and the Pig Account, against its income of other sources under the head “Business” ”Their Lordships after analysing the provisions of section 70 and section 10(27) observed in the following manner: “In this case it is important to bear in mind that set-off is being claimed under Section 70 of the 1961 Act which permits set off of any income falling under any head of income other than the capital gain which is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. We have noticed that in the instant case the exclusion has been conceded in computing the business income or the source of income from the head of business and in computing that business income, the loss from one particular source, that is, broodmares account and the pig account, had been excluded contrary to the submission of the assessee. The assessee wanted these losses to be set off. The Revenue contends that as the sources of the income are not to be included in view of the provisions of Clause (27) of s. 10 of the 1961 Act, the loss suffered from this source could also not merit the exclusion. Under the I.T. Act, there are certain incomes which do not enter into Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 5 the computation of the total income at all. In this connection we have to bear in mind the scheme of the charging section which provides that the incomes shall be charged and s. 4 of the Act provides that the Central Act enacts that the incomes shall be charged for any assessment year and in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the 1961 Act in respect of the total income of the previous year or years or whatever the case may be. The scheme of " total income " has been explained by s. 5 of the Act which provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the total income of the previous year of a person who is a resident includes all income from whatever source it is derived. In computing the total income, certain incomes are not included under s. 10 of the Act. It depends on the particular case where certain income, in respect of which the Act is made inapplicable to the scheme of the Act, and in such a case, the profit and loss resulting from such a source do not enter into the computation at all. But there are other sources which for certain economic reasons are not included or excluded by the will of the Legislature. In such a case we must look to the specific exclusion that has been made. The question is in this case whether s. 10(27) is a source which does not enter into the computation at all or is a source the income in respect of which is excluded in the computation of total income. How this question will have to be viewed, has been looked into by the Supreme Court in several decisions to some of which our attention was drawn.” After discussing the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically the decision of in the case of Karamchand Premchand (supra), the Hon’ble High Court came to the following conclusion: “cl.(27) of s.10 excludes in express terms only “any income derived from a business of live-stock breeding or poultry or dairy farming. It does not exclude the business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming from the operation of the Act. Therefore, the losses suffered by the assessee in the broodmares account and in the pig account were admissible deductions in computing its total income” Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is clearly applicable and accordingly we follow the same in the present case. 9. Now coming to the argument of the learned DR and learned CIT(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt then loss will also not be taken into computation of the income, and such an argument is with reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that "From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words ' income ' or ' profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense 'profits and gains' represent ' plus income ' whereas losses represent 'minus income'. In other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Although Section 6 classifies income under six heads, the main charging provision is Section 3 which levies income-tax, as only one tax, on the 'total income ' of the assessee as defined in Section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ' total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in Section 4(1)'. Secondly, it must be 'computed in the manner laid down in the Act'. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge." While concluding the issue their Lordships observed that “it may be Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 6 remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set- off. Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequent year. It pre-supposes the permissibility and possibility of the carried forward loss being absorbed or set off against the profits and gains, if any, of the subsequent year. Set off implies that the tax is exigible and the assessee wants to adjust the loss against profit to reduce the tax demand. It follows that if such setoff is not permissible or possible owing to the income or profits of the subsequent year being from a non-taxable source, there would be no point in allowing the loss to be “carried forward”. Conversely, if the loss arising in the previous year was under a head not chargeable to tax, it could not be allowed to be carried forward and absorbed against income in a subsequent year from a taxable source.” The ratio and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court would not apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court on the other hand, itself has stated that if loss from the source or head of income is not liable for tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, then it need not be computed or shown in the return and Assessing Officer also need not assess it. This distinction has to be kept in mind. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club have discussed the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that the same will not apply in such cases. Thus, in our conclusion, we hold that section 10(38) excludes in expressed terms only the income arising from transfer of Long term capital asset being equity share or equity fund which is chargeable to STT and not entire source of income from capital gains arising from transfer of shares. It does not lead to exclusion of computation of capital gain of Long term capital asset or Short term capital asset being shares. Accordingly, Long term capital loss on sale of shares would be allowed to be set off against Long term capital gain on sale of land in accordance with section 70(3).” 11. Following the aforesaid decision in case of Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (supra) has attained finality as the appeal preferred by the department against the said decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, though, due to non-prosecution. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the claim of carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of ₹.17,86,21,665/- arising from sale of equity shares. With regard to case law relied by Ld. DR she relied on Apollo Tyres Ltd., v. DCIT (supra), the issue involved in that case was whether long term capital loss incurred on which STT paid could not be set off against long term capital gain arising out of sale of land,the issue is distinguishable. With regard to Nikhilsawhney v. ACIT (supra), this case was pronounced on 17.08.2020 and subsequently Coordinate Bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Aggrieved, when revenue preferred appeal before Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the issue under consideration reached finality. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 6. As similar issue is arising in the present appeal, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, ground no.1, raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 7 7. The issue arising in ground no.2, raised in Revenue’s appeal is pertaining to disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 8. We find that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra decided similar issue by observing as under:– “19. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has earned exempt income to the extent of ₹.49,23,544/- whereas the Assessing Officer calculated the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D to the extent of ₹.67,13,465/- which is more than the exempt income earned by the assessee. The various courts have held that disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act cannot be more than the exempt income earned by the assessee. Therefore, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and we do not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 9. As similar issue is arising in the present appeal, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, ground no.2, raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 10. The issue arising in ground no.3, raised in Revenue’s appeal is pertaining to addition on account of Helicopter / air craft charges. 11. We find that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra decided similar issue by observing as under:– “32. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the Coordinate Bench after considering the facts in the case of the assessee has allowed 1/7 th of the expenses incurred by the assessee as personal. Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the above finding and accordingly, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. After considering the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not find any reason to disturb or interfere with the above finding. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 8 12. As similar issue is arising in the present appeal, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, ground no.3, raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 13. The issue arising in ground no.4, raised in Revenue’s appeal is pertaining to addition on account of software license charges. 14. We find that the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra decided similar issue by observing as under:– “25. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that Ld.CIT(A) allowed the software licence charges expenses claimed by the assessee by relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Integrated Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.3325/Mum/2012. After considering the detailed findings of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 15. As similar issue is arising in the present appeal, we see no reason to deviate from the view so taken by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision, ground no.4, raised in Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/07/2022 Sd/- S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05/07/2022 Shri Avinash N. Bhosale ITA No.1436/Mum./2020 Page | 9 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai