2019 (7) TMI 1560 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeal: Foreign Exchange Gains - Capital or Income? Upheld as Capital Receipts Not Taxable

M/s. Citibank Overseas Investment Corp. Versus DCIT (IT) -2 (1) (1), Mumbai And Vice-Versa.

M/s. Citibank Overseas Investment Corp. Versus DCIT (IT) -2 (1) (1), Mumbai And Vice-Versa. - TMI Issues:1. Tax treatment of foreign exchange gain on underlying Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts.2. Classification of foreign exchange gain under capital gains or Income from Other Sources.Analysis:Issue 1: Tax treatment of foreign exchange gain on underlying Forward Foreign Exchange ContractsThe appeal by the revenue contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The main contention revolved around whether the foreign exchange gain on underlying Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts should be considered on capital account and constitute a capital gain, even if such contracts are not considered capital assets. The revenue argued that the gains should be taxable under the head Income from Other Sources. The assessee, a foreign company incorporated in the USA, earned gains on cancellation and rollover of forward foreign exchange contracts during the year. The assessee claimed these gains to be capital receipts not chargeable to tax, as the contracts were entered into to protect investments in India from foreign currency fluctuations.Issue 2: Classification of foreign exchange gain under capital gains or Income from Other SourcesThe revenue's appeal was based on the argument that the gains should be taxable under Income from Other Sources, while the assessee contended that the gains should be treated as capital gains. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions by relying on previous decisions in the assessee's own case for different assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already settled in the assessee's favor in previous years, and the Ld. CIT(A) had followed the same reasoning in this case as well. The Tribunal found that the impugned decision was consistent with previous orders and that there was no change in the factual matrix. Consequently, both the appeal and cross-objection were dismissed, affirming the tax treatment of the foreign exchange gains on Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts as capital gains.This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in tax treatment based on previous decisions and the significance of factual continuity in determining tax liabilities related to foreign exchange gains on financial contracts.