2014 (1) TMI 831 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Pune rules on mutual fund profits classification, directs reassessment

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the correct head of income for taxing profit on sales of units of mutual funds. ... Assessability of income - Profits on sale of shares and mutual fund units – Profits and gains from business of capital gains – Held that:- The gains on sale of both securities and the units are taxable under the head ‘capital gains’ and not under the head ‘profits and gains from business or profession’ as held by the revenue - the acquisition of the shares and investment for the purpose of ‘control and management’ envisages the investment activity and not the business activity - Revenue has not brought anything to demonstrate that the facts are different in this year – decided in favour of Assessee. Applicability of section 14A of the Act r.w Rule 8D of the Rules – Held that:- The rules are inserted subsequently and applied prospectively – Relying upon Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Anr. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - CIT(A) fell in to error in assuming the jurisdiction of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for the AY – thus, the enhancement has to go and therefore, the assessee wins on this issue – matter remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. Issues:1. Correct head of income for taxing profit on sales of units of mutual funds.2. Applicability of Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act to the facts of the case.Issue 1: Correct head of income for taxing profit on sales of units of mutual funds:The appeal was against the order of CIT (A) regarding the assessment year 2006-07. The main contention was the classification of profit on the sale of shares and units of mutual funds under the head 'Profits and Gains from Business' instead of 'Capital Gains' as returned by the assessee. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the assessee's own case for AYs 2004-05 and 2005-06, where it was held that profits from the sale of shares constitute long-term capital gains and not business income. The Tribunal reiterated that gains on the sale of securities and units are taxable under the head 'capital gains' and not 'profits and gains from business or profession.' The acquisition of shares for 'control and management' was deemed as an investment activity, not a business activity. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT (A) and allowed the relevant grounds of the assessee's appeal.Issue 2: Applicability of Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act to the facts of the case:The second issue revolved around the application of Rule 8D with section 14A of the Act. The CIT (A) had enhanced the disallowance by applying Rule 8D for AY 2006-07, which the counsel argued was erroneous as these rules apply prospectively. The Tribunal considered that the CIT (A) erred due to not being aware of the judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding the prospective application of Rule 8D. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the enhancement made by the CIT (A) had to be reversed. Regarding the quantum of disallowance made by the AO, the Tribunal found that the AO estimated the disallowance without properly considering the assessee's viewpoint, leading to a lack of a speaking order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the issue for the AO to reevaluate the disallowance after considering the assessee's arguments and providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the assessee in this regard.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune delivered a detailed judgment addressing the correct head of income for taxing profit on sales of units of mutual funds and the applicability of Rule 8D with section 14A of the Act to the case. The Tribunal upheld the classification of profits on the sale of securities and units under the head 'capital gains' and directed the AO to reevaluate the disallowance in compliance with the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal provided a comprehensive analysis of each issue, ensuring a fair and just decision in the matter.