Tribunal affirms CIT(A) on loss treatment

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The share of loss from the partnership firm was not added back for computing book profit under Section 115JB. Additionally, the long-term capital loss from off-market transactions was allowed to be carried forward and set off in subsequent years. The decisions were based on a strict interpretation of provisions and precedents, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of share of loss from the partnership firm while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Allowance of long-term capital loss for carry forward and set off.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allowance of Share of Loss from the Partnership Firm:
The first issue pertains to the addition of the share of loss from the partnership firm amounting to Rs. 7,724/- while computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this share of loss, arguing that it should be added back to the net profit for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) computation. However, the assessee contended that this issue had already been settled in their favor by the jurisdictional Co-ordinate bench of ITAT Kolkata in the assessee's own case for AY 2012-13. The Tribunal in that case had held that the share of loss from a partnership firm should not be added back to the net profit for computing book profit under Section 115JB, as none of the clauses in the explanation to Section 115JB permitted such an adjustment. The Co-ordinate bench emphasized that the provisions of Section 115JB should be construed strictly, and nothing more than what is specifically stated by the legislature can be inferred. The Tribunal, following the precedent, found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the AO.

2. Allowance of Long-term Capital Loss for Carry Forward and Set Off:
The second issue involves the disallowance of long-term capital loss of Rs. 3,79,12,054/- by the AO, who also did not allow it to be carried forward for subsequent years. The AO's rationale was that since the income arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets (equity shares) where STT is paid is exempt under Section 10(38), the loss from such transactions should also be ignored. The AO further argued that the manner in which the sale transactions were conducted was a colorable device to generate artificial long-term capital loss by executing off-market transactions where STT was not paid.

The assessee, however, provided full particulars of the purchase and sale of shares, including DMAT statements and bank statements, to establish the genuineness of the transactions. The sale prices were within the price range prevailing on the Bombay Stock Exchange on the relevant dates. The assessee argued that the off-market transactions were genuine and were conducted to minimize costs and expenses associated with the sale, such as STT, brokerage, service tax, and stamp duty. The Tribunal noted that off-market transactions are recognized and permissible under the law, and there was no material on record to show that the prices were manipulated or that the transactions did not take place.

The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Mridu Hari Dalmia Parivar Trust, which held that off-market transactions resulting in genuine loss are not covered under Section 10(38) and thus the loss can be carried forward and set off in subsequent years. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's disallowance was based on surmises and conjectures without any concrete evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the carry forward and set off of the long-term capital loss.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues. The share of loss from the partnership firm was not to be added back while computing book profit under Section 115JB, and the long-term capital loss from off-market transactions was allowed to be carried forward and set off in subsequent years. The judgments were based on strict interpretation of the provisions and precedents set by earlier decisions.

---