Surrender proceeds of ULIP deemed capital asset under s.2(14); taxed as indexed Capital Gains, not Other Income

ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that surrender proceeds of a ULIP for AY 2017-18 constitute a capital asset under s.2(14) and must be taxed under the head "Capital Gains" with indexation, not as "Income from Other Sources." The 4th and 5th provisos to s.10(10D) (w.e.f. 01.04.2021) are inapplicable to the year in question. Mere TDS deduction does not determine nature of income; AO is directed to reclassify the receipt as capital gains, allow indexation and grant credit for TDS as reflected in Form 26AS.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether maturity/surrender proceeds of a Unit Linked Insurance Policy (ULIP) are taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources" or as "Capital Gains".

2. Whether a ULIP constitutes a "capital asset" within the meaning of section 2(14) for the assessment year under consideration (AY 2017-18) and, if so, the consequences for tax treatment of surrender proceeds.

3. Whether exemption under section 10(10D) applies to the impugned ULIP and whether absence of exemption under section 10(10D) converts the receipt into income chargeable under "Income from Other Sources".

4. Whether indexation and long-term capital gains treatment (including relevant rate provisions) apply if proceeds are taxed as capital gains.

5. Whether tax deducted at source (TDS) reflected in Form 26AS must be allowed as credit by the Assessing Officer.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Characterisation of ULIP surrender proceeds (Capital Gain v. Other Sources)

Legal framework: Sections 2(14) (definition of capital asset), 10(10D) (exemption of certain life insurance receipts), section 45 and section 14 (heads of income) read together; post-2021 additions including section 45(1B) provide for capital gains treatment where clause applies.

Precedent treatment: Tribunal decisions (Mihir K. Jhaveri; Subhash Tandon; and others relied upon) held that ULIPs qualify as capital assets and surrender proceeds should be taxed under capital gains, with indexation allowed where applicable. Those precedents were followed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the nature of ULIP as an investment by policyholder into units akin to mutual fund/equity investments. Mere fact that insurer, not the policyholder, effectuates investment does not alter the fundamental character of the underlying units. Section 10(10D) is an exemption provision and not a charging provision; lack of exemption under 10(10D) does not ipso facto convert the receipt into income from other sources. The reasoning emphasises that classification must follow general charging provisions (section 4/5) and head selection under section 14, informed by the nature of the asset/receipt. Reliance placed on prior Tribunal authorities finding that ULIPs amount to capital assets and gains arise as capital gains on redemption/surrender.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a ULIP represents investment units and the policyholder is not in business, surrender/maturity proceeds shall be considered capital receipt and taxed under the head "Capital Gains" (subject to relevant statutory qualifications). Obiter - Observations on broader policy or later legislative insertions (post-assessment year) are explanatory.

Conclusions: The surrender proceeds must be taxed under the head "Capital Gains" and not as "Income from Other Sources" for the facts and period under consideration.

Issue 2 - Applicability of section 2(14) as to ULIP being a capital asset for AY 2017-18

Legal framework: Section 2(14) defines "capital asset"; amendments introduced by Finance Act, 2021 and later clarify inclusion of certain ULIPs where provisos to section 10(10D) operate.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal decisions cited construed section 2(14) and related amendments to support characterisation of ULIPs as capital assets in circumstances comparable to those before the Tribunal.

Interpretation and reasoning: Although specific statutory amendments (4th and 5th provisos to section 10(10D) and corresponding clarifications in section 2(14)) were inserted with effect from 01.04.2021, the Tribunal examined the substance of the transaction and earlier judicial treatment to conclude that a ULIP functioning as an investment vehicle is to be treated as a capital asset even for redemptions occurring prior to the 2021 amendment. The Tribunal noted provisos inserted in 2021 are not applicable to AY 2017-18; nonetheless, historical jurisprudence treated ULIPs akin to capital assets and that reasoning applies.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A ULIP that embodies investment units and is not merely an insurance receipt can be a capital asset for the holder and its accretion on surrender taxed as capital gains notwithstanding timing of post-fact amendments. Obiter - Legislative history and policy observations regarding the 2021 amendments addressed future certainty but are not determinative for past years.

Conclusions: For AY 2017-18 the ULIP in question qualifies as a capital asset and surrender proceeds fall to be assessed under capital gains rules.

Issue 3 - Effect of section 10(10D) and its provisos; whether absence of exemption mandates taxation as Income from Other Sources

Legal framework: Section 10(10D) exempts certain life insurance receipts; provisos introduced later restrict exemption for certain high single-premium policies. Section 194DA provides for TDS on certain insurance payments.

Precedent treatment: Prior Tribunal decisions accepted that failure of exemption under 10(10D) does not itself determine the head of income and that capital gains treatment can be appropriate where the instrument is a capital asset.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal rejected the lower authorities' approach that absence of exemption under section 10(10D) automatically converts the receipt into taxable income under "Other Sources". Section 10(10D) being an exemption cannot be read as a charging mechanism; the correct approach is to determine whether the amount is chargeable under any head (section 14) based on nature. The fact that TDS was deducted under section 194DA and that 10(10D) exceptions existed for certain policies does not override the characterisation as capital asset and capital gain when applicable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Non-applicability of section 10(10D) does not itself convert a capital receipt into income from other sources; classification must follow the nature of the asset and applicable charging provisions. Obiter - Comments on how later legislative insertions address ambiguities and future taxation are explanatory.

Conclusions: Absence of exemption under section 10(10D) in the facts of AY 2017-18 does not compel taxation under "Income from Other Sources"; capital gains treatment is appropriate.

Issue 4 - Allowance of indexation and applicable capital gains computation

Legal framework: Provisions governing long-term capital gains (including indexation of cost for inflation where asset qualifies as long-term) and section 45(1B) as introduced in later finance legislation provide mechanics for taxing ULIP proceeds as capital gains where specified provisos apply.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal in cited cases directed that indexation be allowed and amounts be taxed under capital gains for similar facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: Having held proceeds to be capital gains, the Tribunal directed assessment/employment of capital gains computation with indexation as applicable to long-term assets. The analysis relied on parity with mutual fund/share transactions where underlying units represent equity exposure and long-term capital gains regime (including indexation where appropriate under law) applies.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where ULIP is taxed as capital asset and surrender qualifies as long-term, indexation benefit must be allowed in computing capital gains. Obiter - Specific rate implications and precise computation mechanics reserved to assessing officer to apply per law.

Conclusions: AO directed to assess the accretion on surrender under capital gains head and allow indexation while computing taxable gain.

Issue 5 - Credit for TDS reflected in Form 26AS

Legal framework: TDS credit principles; Form 26AS as authoritative statement of tax deducted and deposited.

Precedent treatment: Standard practice and jurisprudence treat documentary evidence of TDS in Form 26AS as basis for claiming credit subject to reconciliation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that TDS of Rs. 60,145 is reflected in Form 26AS and therefore directed the Assessing Officer to allow the corresponding credit while giving effect to the appellate order (or refund if no liability remains).

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where TDS is reflected in Form 26AS, the taxpayer is entitled to credit subject to reconciliation at assessment; the AO must allow this credit in implementing the appellate order.

Conclusions: Credit of TDS shown in Form 26AS must be allowed by the AO; if no tax liability survives, refund the excess.

---