2015 (11) TMI 1303 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on F&O loss & Section 54F exemption

ITO, Ward 11 (2), New Delhi Versus Shri Samir Jasuja

ITO, Ward 11 (2), New Delhi Versus Shri Samir Jasuja - TMI Issues Involved:1. Allowance of notional loss on F&O foreign currency transaction.2. Claim of exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Ground No. 1: Allowance of Notional Loss on F&O Foreign Currency TransactionThe revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in allowing a notional loss of Rs. 37,73,273 on F&O foreign currency transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated this loss as notional based on Board's Instruction No. 3/2010 dated 23.3.10, disallowing it under the business head and preventing it from being set off against other income or carried forward.The assessee argued that the loss incurred was actual, not notional, arising from real transactions in foreign exchange derivatives. The assessee provided evidence from the transaction ledger and bank statements to substantiate the actual loss. The CIT(A) found that the transactions were genuine and involved actual losses, not marked-to-market losses. The CIT(A) observed that the transactions were settled on the settlement day with corresponding debits and credits, thus qualifying as actual losses allowable under Section 43(5) of the Act.The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO incorrectly treated the losses as notional. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the Board's circular on notional loss did not apply to the assessee's transactions. Hence, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on this ground.Ground No. 2: Claim of Exemption under Section 54FThe revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in allowing the exemption claim of Rs. 2,00,87,987 under Section 54F, asserting that the assessee did not meet the conditions prescribed under the section. The AO had denied the exemption, citing that the assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of transfer of the original asset, which disqualified him from the exemption.The assessee countered that he owned only one property, having gifted another property to his wife before the relevant date. The CIT(A) noted that the gift deed was registered, transferring all rights to the wife, and thus, the assessee was not the owner on the date of transfer. The CIT(A) also found that the AO's assumption of a farmhouse being a residential property was baseless, as it was merely agricultural land with no construction.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, confirming that the assessee complied with all conditions of Section 54F. The Tribunal also noted that the capital gain proceeds were correctly deposited in the capital gain account scheme before the due date, despite being temporarily invested in mutual funds. The Tribunal found the AO's rejection of the exemption claim unjustified and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the exemption.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal on both grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the allowance of the actual loss on F&O foreign currency transactions and the exemption claim under Section 54F. The Tribunal found no valid reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s conclusions, affirming that the assessee met the necessary legal requirements and conditions.