Share transaction income treated as capital gains despite high volumes when consistently shown as investments

The ITAT Amritsar held that income from share transactions should be treated as capital gains rather than business income, despite high transaction volumes, as the assessee consistently treated shares as investments in books and balance sheet, which was accepted by revenue in previous years. Following Gujarat HC precedent in Pr. CIT v. Bhanuprasad D Trivedi, HUF, the tribunal found clear investment intention. Additionally, legal expenses were allowed under section 37, following SC precedent in CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd, as expenses were incurred to protect profit-earning assets.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of income from the sale and purchase of shares as business income or capital gains.
2. Disallowance of legal expenses.

Summary:

Issue 1: Treatment of Income from Sale and Purchase of Shares
The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to reconsider the nature of the transaction concerning the sale and purchase of shares, whether it should be treated as business income or capital gains. The High Court emphasized the need to examine the volume, frequency, continuity, and regularity of transactions, as outlined in the decisions of the Delhi High Court and Gujarat High Court. The Tribunal had earlier referred to these decisions but did not fully apply the tests to the facts of the present case.

The Tribunal, upon reconsideration, acknowledged the various tests laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the case of "Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rewashanker A. Kothari," including the intention behind the initial acquisition, the purpose of subsequent sales, and how the shares were treated in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently treated the shares as investments, reflected in the balance sheet, and earned substantial dividend income, indicating an investment intention. The Tribunal also considered precedents where high volume and frequency of transactions did not alter the treatment of shares as investments.

In view of the factual matrix and judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee purchased shares with the intention of investment. Therefore, gains arising from the transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains and not business income. The AO was directed to treat the income from the transfer of shares as capital gains.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Legal Expenses
The High Court also set aside the Tribunal's finding on legal expenses, requiring fresh consideration. The assessee argued that the legal expenses were incurred to protect his interest as Chairman of M/s AB Hotels Ltd., where he held a significant shareholding. The expenses were related to a dispute before the Company Law Board, which, if unresolved, could adversely affect his other business interests and reputation.

The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in "CIT vs. Delhi Safe Deposit Co. Ltd.," which held that expenses incurred to protect a profit-earning apparatus are deductible. The Tribunal also cited the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in "DCIT vs. Anil Dhirajlal Ambai," where settlement charges paid to SEBI were considered business expenses.

Given the similarities with the cited cases, the Tribunal held that the legal expenses incurred by the assessee to protect his position in M/s AB Hotels Ltd. were allowable under Section 37 of the Act.

Other Matters:
The appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 was dismissed as infructuous upon the appellant's request.

Conclusion:
The appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant, treating the income from the transfer of shares as capital gains and allowing the legal expenses as deductible. The order was pronounced in the open court on 06.10.2023.

---