Tribunal: Shares sold within 30 days = business income, STT deduction allowed The tribunal ruled that gains from shares sold within 30 days should be treated as business income, allowing the deduction of Securities Transaction Tax ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal: Shares sold within 30 days = business income, STT deduction allowed
The tribunal ruled that gains from shares sold within 30 days should be treated as business income, allowing the deduction of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) paid. Gains from shares held for over 30 days were classified as capital gains. The tribunal admitted the assessee's claim for STT deduction, citing precedent. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for income computation based on share holding periods. The appeal was partially allowed with instructions for income verification.
Issues Involved: 1. Treatment of capital gain from the sale of shares as business income instead of short-term capital gain. 2. Adjustment for Securities Transaction Tax (STT) if the income is taxable as business income.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Treatment of Capital Gain from Sale of Shares as Business Income The primary issue in this appeal is whether the income arising from the sale and purchase of shares should be treated as business income or as capital gains. The assessee, a company engaged in renting properties and dealing in shares, contended that the income from the sale of shares should be treated as capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] disagreed, treating the gains as business income.
The AO's decision was based on several factors: - The AO emphasized that the nature of the transaction (trading or investment) is a mixed question of law and facts, and the intention of the assessee is crucial. - The AO noted that the assessee's frequent and systematic transactions in shares indicated a business activity rather than an investment. - The AO pointed out that the assessee had borrowed funds for purchasing shares, which suggested a trading intent. - The AO also highlighted that the shares were often sold within a short duration, further indicating trading activity.
The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, dismissing the assessee's appeal. The CIT(A) also rejected the assessee's alternative claim for an adjustment of STT, as it was not raised before the AO.
Issue 2: Adjustment for Securities Transaction Tax (STT) The assessee argued that if the income from shares is treated as business income, the STT paid should be allowed as a business expense. The CIT(A) denied this claim because it was not made in the original return of income filed with the revenue.
Tribunal's Decision: The tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the material on record. The tribunal noted that: - The assessee had explained that no interest-bearing borrowed funds were used for buying shares, as the interest expenses were allowed under the head "income from house property." - The transactions in shares were numerous and frequent, with many shares sold within 90 days of purchase, indicating a business activity. - The tribunal emphasized that the classification of income depends on the motives, frequency, and regularity of transactions.
The tribunal concluded that: - Gains from shares sold within 30 days of purchase should be treated as business income, and the corresponding STT paid should be allowed as a deduction. - Gains from shares held for more than 30 days should be treated as capital gains.
The tribunal also admitted the assessee's claim for the first time before the tribunal for the deduction of STT paid, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders. The case was remanded to the AO for verification and computation of business income and capital gains based on the period of holding of shares.
Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with specific directions for the AO to verify and compute the income accordingly. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2017.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.