Option money from joint venture agreement treated as capital receipt, capital gains computed on stake sale with deductible expenses allowed

ITAT Delhi held that option money received by the assessee under a joint venture agreement constitutes capital receipt, not revenue receipt, following its previous decision and HC affirmation. The tribunal directed computation of capital gains on 940 crores received from sale of 23% stake, allowing deduction of proportionate capitalized interest and professional expenses subject to AO verification. However, business promotion expenses of 550.82 crores paid for obtaining foreign exchange for an individual were disallowed as lacking direct business nexus. Appeal partly allowed in assessee's favor.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals primarily revolve around the nature and tax treatment of the option money received by the assessee under a joint venture agreement with a foreign entity, specifically:

1. Whether the option money received by the assessee is a capital receipt or a revenue receipt for the purposes of income tax.

2. The correct method of computation of capital gains on the sale of shares in the joint venture company, including the appropriate consideration of the option money received and refunded.

3. Whether the interest and professional expenses capitalized on borrowed funds used for acquisition of shares are allowable deductions under the Income Tax Act while computing capital gains.

4. The legitimacy of the disallowance of business promotion expenses claimed by the assessee in the assessment year 2018-19.

Issue 1: Nature of Option Money - Capital Receipt or Revenue Receipt

The legal framework involves interpretation of the Income Tax Act provisions relating to capital gains and income from business or profession. Precedents include multiple orders of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which have consistently held the option money to be a capital receipt. The Tribunal's earlier decisions for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16, upheld by the High Court, established that the option money received is an advance against sale consideration of shares and not income in the year of receipt.

The Court noted that the joint venture agreement granted the foreign party an option to purchase shares upon relaxation of foreign investment norms, with the option money serving as an advance against future sale consideration. The option money received was subject to adjustment at the time of actual transfer of shares, with any excess refunded to the foreign party as per the agreement.

The Tribunal emphasized that the option money is linked directly to the transfer of shares and involves a liability to repay in certain circumstances, thus cannot be considered income on receipt. The agreement also provided for dividend rights and management participation for the assessee, negating the Revenue's argument that the arrangement was merely a financial transaction yielding guaranteed income.

The Revenue's reliance on a coordinate bench decision involving a different factual matrix and issue (year of accrual of income, not nature of receipt) was rejected. The Tribunal distinguished that case on facts, noting that in the present case, the option money was refundable and linked to market value of shares at transfer, unlike the fixed return in the coordinate bench's case.

The principle of consistency was also invoked, as the Revenue had accepted the capital receipt nature of option money for multiple assessment years spanning over two decades, and the High Court dismissed Revenue appeals on this ground.

Conclusively, the Tribunal held that the option money is a capital receipt, an advance against sale consideration, taxable only upon transfer of shares.

Issue 2: Computation of Capital Gains on Sale of Shares

In the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee sold 23% of its shareholding following regulatory changes allowing increased foreign investment. The sale consideration included Rs. 940 crore received as market value from foreign remittances plus Rs. 524.29 crore of option money retained per the agreement, net of Rs. 478.87 crore refunded to the foreign party.

The Assessing Officer initially disregarded the capital gains disclosed by the assessee and treated both the option money received and sale proceeds as revenue receipts, taxing them accordingly. The Tribunal rejected this approach, directing the Assessing Officer to compute capital gains based on net sale consideration (market value plus net option money retained) and allow deductions for subscription price and capitalized expenses.

The Tribunal underscored that the refunded option money should not be included in sale consideration, as it was returned in accordance with the joint venture agreement and RBI approval. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer's treatment was inconsistent with the settled position of law and earlier decisions.

Issue 3: Allowability of Capitalized Interest and Professional Expenses

The assessee claimed capitalization of interest on borrowed funds used to acquire shares and professional expenses incurred in connection with the investment. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses, contending that the investment was a financial transaction and the interest was revenue in nature, also relying on the fact that the assessee did not claim deduction in the return.

The Tribunal referred to settled legal principles upheld by the Delhi High Court and other High Courts, which establish that interest on borrowed capital used for acquisition of a capital asset must be capitalized until the date of sale of the asset. The Tribunal cited relevant judgments affirming this principle.

Given the finality of the issue on the nature of option money as capital receipt, the Tribunal held that the capitalized interest and professional expenses proportionate to the 23% stake sold must be allowed as deduction under section 48 while computing capital gains. The Tribunal directed verification of the quantum of expenses but allowed the claim subject to such verification.

The Tribunal also rejected the Assessing Officer's observations regarding the balance capitalized expenses for the remaining stake, noting that the issue had attained finality and that the Assessing Officer's comments were premature and incorrect.

Issue 4: Disallowance of Business Promotion Expenses for AY 2018-19

The assessee claimed business promotion expenses incurred for obtaining foreign exchange. The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses on the ground that the assessee did not carry on any business, a view upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

The Tribunal noted that the expenses related to commission paid for obtaining foreign exchange for an individual, not directly connected to the assessee's business activities. The assessee failed to furnish adequate details or justification to establish the nexus of these expenses with its business. Accordingly, the Tribunal sustained the disallowance.

Significant Holdings and Core Principles

The Tribunal's legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpt from its 2015-16 order, which was relied upon in the present case:

"Option price received by the assessee is directly linked with the transfer of Dabur shares. Dabur shares are to be transferred always at the market rate and if the Dabur incurs certain losses, then same shall be to an extent be recouped by CUIH. If there is upside in the market value of share, such defined gain on transfer of Dabur share is to be retained by Dabur. ... Option price is merely an advance against the purchase of the shares by CUIH at a later point of time. ... Option price is capital receipt, received in advance by the assessee."

The Tribunal reaffirmed that the option money is not income on receipt but a capital receipt to be adjusted at the time of share transfer, and that the joint venture agreement is a shareholders' agreement involving investment risk and management rights, not a mere financial guarantee arrangement.

The Tribunal also emphasized the principle of consistency in taxation, noting the Revenue's long-standing acceptance of the option money as capital receipt and the dismissal of Revenue appeals by the High Court on this ground.

Regarding capitalization of interest, the Tribunal reiterated the settled legal position that interest on borrowed funds used for acquisition of capital assets must be capitalized until the asset's sale, citing authoritative judgments.

On the disallowance of business promotion expenses, the Tribunal upheld the necessity of establishing a direct nexus with business activities and the requirement of adequate justification, which the assessee failed to provide.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute capital gains in line with the settled position, allowing appropriate deductions and excluding refunded option money from consideration.

---