Speculative transactions and expatriate salary disallowance shape tax treatment of securities trading, PMS payments, and overseas payroll

Marketable securities and UTI units traded through Bankers' Receipts without actual delivery were treated as speculative transactions within section 43(5), so the resulting loss was confined to set-off against speculation profits and not normal banking income. The Portfolio Management Scheme was described as an agency-style investment service, but the impugned addition could not stand because the amount was not debited to profit and loss account or claimed as a deduction, and the excess payment came from the PMS corpus itself. Salary paid outside India to expatriate employees for services rendered in India was disallowable under section 40(a)(iii), and later tax remittance did not cure the disallowance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether purchase and sale of UTI units and Government securities through Bankers' Receipts without actual delivery fell within section 43(5) and attracted section 73; (ii) whether additions made in respect of the Portfolio Management Scheme were sustainable; and (iii) whether salary paid outside India to expatriate employees was disallowable under section 40(a)(iii).

Issue (i): Whether purchase and sale of UTI units and Government securities through Bankers' Receipts without actual delivery fell within section 43(5) and attracted section 73.

Analysis: The expression "commodity" in section 43(5) was construed in its plain and natural sense as covering articles of trade or commerce. On that basis, securities and units, being freely traded marketable items, were treated as commodities for the purpose of speculative transaction. The Bankers' Receipt mechanism did not amount to actual delivery, because the documents themselves contemplated exchange of scrips with actual securities within the stipulated period and no evidence showed that delivery was in fact effected. The exclusion for banking companies in the Explanation to section 73 did not assist the assessee, because the transactions themselves were speculative in nature when carried on without actual delivery.

Conclusion: The transactions were speculative transactions, and the loss therefrom could be set off only against speculation profits and not against normal banking profits.

Issue (ii): Whether additions made in respect of the Portfolio Management Scheme were sustainable.

Analysis: The scheme, on its terms, was an agency-style portfolio service in which the bank was to invest client funds in securities and credit the resulting income to the clients, while earning only commission. The scheme by itself was not a fixed deposit arrangement. However, the actual implementation was contrary to the declared scheme and contrary to RBI directions, inasmuch as the funds were pooled, separate client accounts were not maintained, and returns were paid at a predetermined percentage. Although expenditure or loss incurred in violation of law was not allowable in principle, no addition could be sustained because the impugned amount was not debited to the profit and loss account or claimed as a deduction in computing income, and the excess payment was made out of the PMS corpus itself.

Conclusion: The addition could not be sustained and was deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether salary paid outside India to expatriate employees was disallowable under section 40(a)(iii).

Analysis: The assessee was permitted to raise the legal claim even though it had not been taken in the original assessment. On merits, the payments were salaries for services rendered in India and were paid outside India. Section 40(a)(iii) operates as a prohibitory provision and disallows such salary expenditure unless tax is paid or deducted under Chapter XVII-B within the prescribed time. The subsequent remittance of tax and interest under Board circulars did not confer the benefit of deduction under that clause, because unlike clause (i), clause (iii) contains no saving proviso for belated compliance.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(iii) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the Portfolio Management Scheme addition but failed on the speculative-loss and expatriate-salary disallowances, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Marketable securities and units traded without actual delivery can constitute speculative transactions; an expenditure barred by law cannot be allowed, but no addition can be sustained unless the amount is actually claimed as a deduction or debited; and salary paid outside India is hit by section 40(a)(iii) unless tax is deducted or paid in the manner required by Chapter XVII-B within time.

---