Short-term capital loss set-off order u/s 70(2) and ADR/GDR dividend TDS credit accepted; additions deleted.

Section 70(2) permits intra-head set-off of short-term capital loss without prescribing any mandatory sequencing between STCG taxable at normal rates and STCG subject to concessional rates; in the absence of an express statutory bar, the assessee's chosen order of set-off cannot be displaced merely because it lowers tax, so the AO/DRP's forced set-off against concessional-rate STCG was rejected and the assessee's computation was directed to be accepted. Dividend on ADR/GDR held by a non-resident is governed by sections 115AC and 196D and had already suffered TDS; taxing it again and denying credit due to Form 26AS/rule 37BA mismatches would cause impermissible double taxation and violate sections 199 and 205, so the addition and denial of TDS credit were deleted.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1) Whether, under section 70(2), an assessee can choose the sequence of set-off of short-term capital loss against short-term capital gains from STT-paid transactions (taxed at a concessional rate) and non-STT transactions (taxed at a higher rate), in the absence of any statutory hierarchy, or whether the Revenue can mandate a particular order that results in higher tax.

2) Whether dividend income received on ADR/GDR holdings can be added to total income without allowing credit for tax deducted at source where the tax is shown to have been deducted and deposited but is not reflected in the assessee's Form 26AS due to non-compliance/procedural constraints under rule 37BA by third parties; and whether such addition/denial results in impermissible double taxation contrary to sections 199 and 205.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Set-off sequence of short-term capital losses against STT and non-STT short-term capital gains

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined section 70(2), which permits set-off of short-term capital loss against income "as arrived at under a similar computation" in respect of any other capital asset, and noted that computation of capital gains is governed by sections 48 to 55, while provisions such as section 111A and section 115AD relate to the rate of tax.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the expression "similar computation" in section 70(2) refers to similarity in the computational mechanism under sections 48 to 55 and not to the eventual rate of tax applicable to different categories of gains. Since the statute does not prescribe any hierarchy or mandatory internal sequencing for applying short-term capital losses across different short-term capital gain streams, the Court found no authority for the Revenue to compel a loss-adjustment order merely because it yields a higher tax outcome. The Court considered that importing rate-of-tax considerations into section 70(2) would amount to introducing a constraint that the Legislature did not enact.

Conclusions: The Court conclusively accepted the assessee's method of set-off (adjusting losses against non-STT gains before STT gains) as being in consonance with section 70(2). It rejected the recomputation that re-sequenced set-off to first absorb losses against concessional-rate gains and directed recomputation of short-term capital gains accordingly, with deletion of the resultant addition arising from the Revenue's re-sequencing.

Issue 2: Taxability of ADR/GDR dividend and entitlement to TDS credit despite non-reflection in Form 26AS / non-compliance by third parties

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined the regime for ADR/GDR dividend in the context of section 115AC (concessional taxation), section 196D (withholding mechanism), and the entitlement to credit under sections 199 and 205, while treating rule 37BA as a procedural mechanism relevant to transmission of credit.

Interpretation and reasoning: On the facts found, the Court held that tax had "undeniably" been deducted at source on the ADR/GDR dividends and deposited with the Government, and that the non-reflection of the credit in Form 26AS was a matter of "procedural transmission" rather than substantive entitlement. The Court ruled that taxing the dividend while denying credit solely because of non-visibility in Form 26AS and third-party non-compliance under rule 37BA would impose a substantive tax incidence ignoring tax already suffered and would result in "manifest double taxation" of the same income. It further held that the procedural framework cannot defeat the substantive right to credit where the assessee furnishes evidences (vouchers/confirmations) showing deduction and deposit of tax and absence of claim of such credit elsewhere. The Court also treated the offered indemnity as an additional safeguard (though not determinative) to address any concern of duplicate credit.

Conclusions: The Court deleted the addition in respect of ADR/GDR dividend as unsustainable. It further directed that, to the extent necessary while giving effect, the Assessing Officer should verify from the evidences already on record that TDS was deducted on such dividends and not claimed by the depository banks, and then grant full credit to the assessee in accordance with sections 199 and 205, taking the indemnity on record as an added measure against double credit.

---