TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (12) TMI 556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions does not fall in the ambit of Explanation to section 73 of the I.T. Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and settled legal position, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that no expenses were required to be incurred in relation to earning dividend income and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 83,662/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D. 5. That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing." 3. The brief facts relating to ground nos. 1 to 3 raised by the revenue are that while doing the scrutiny assessment Assessing Officer observed that during the year the assessee company was engaged in the business of dealing in shares, unit, derivatives and financing. From the details filed by the assessee in course of hearing, it is seen that the income of the assessee consisted of the following : Profit/(Loss) from Share Dealing (2,80,26,170) Profit/(Loss) from Dealing in Units of Mutual funds 17,54,854 Profit/(Loss) from Derivatives (i.e. F&O) 2,90,55,153 Share Difference Income 37,463 Interest Income 10,23,640 Service Char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of holding that the unit is a share." 3.4. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court that units are different from shares is the basis to arrive at the conclusion by the A.O as under: "By the same analogy, derivatives are different from shares since they have been so expressedly defined by the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956." 3.5. Further, Mumbai ITA T in the case of DCIT Vs SSKI Investors services (P) Ltd. 113 7T7 (Mumbai,) 511 and of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of C. Bharath Kumar Vs DCIT (2005) 4 SOT 593 (Bang,),held that dealing in derivative is a separate kind of transaction, which does not involve any purchase and sale o( shares and therefore, loss thereof cannot be treated as speculation loss. 3.6. Further after making long discussion as recorded in page nos. 7 to 12 the A.O came to the following conclusion: "As Share Dealing and Dealing in F&O are covered under Special Provision, I am unable to accept the contention of the assessee that the said businesses are inseparable and loss from one business can be set off with profit from other. As per Section 43(5)(d) r/w Notification No. 2/2006 dated 25.01.2006, loss from dealing in derivative on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. CIT(A) has directed AO to aggregate the share delivery loss with share derivatives profit and the net should be considered as the income of assessee for the year by observing as under : 2.5. I have carefully considered the assessment order, submission made by the assessee and the details filed. During the year, the assessee is in the business of shares, in which it has trading of shares, having derivative in shares and speculation in shares. As per assessment order, the following is the result profit / (Loss):- Profit/ (Loss) from Share Dealing (2,80,26,170) Proflt/ (Loss) from Derivatives (i.e. F & 0) 2,90,55,153 Share Difference Income 37,463 Profit 10,66,446 2.6. As per the A.O, the profit from the derivative transactions of the shares is not a speculative loss in view of the special provisions of Sec.43(5)(d) of the I. Tax Act and trading loss in shares is hit by the Explanation to Sec.73 of the I. Tax Act and hence the share dealing loss, which is a deemed speculation loss can not be adjusted with profit from derivatives transaction. 2.7. The Ld.A/R of the assessee has mainly relied that the aggregation of the share trading loss and profit from d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss on share delivery and profit on derivative transactions are not hit by Sec.43(5) of the I. Tax Act. Both the transactions are non-speculative so far as Sec.43(5) is concerned. Further, when both are considered in the light of Explanation to Sec.73 will have the same treatment. 2.10. Assessee's case is fully covered by the above decision. Firstly, assessee is having profit from the share derivative transaction and loss from share trading (delivery). Both are to be treated as speculatwe before applying deeming fiction as per Explanation to Sec.73 of the I. T. Act. Section 73 of the I. T. Act deals with carry forward of the speculation loss. Before considering whether it is hit by the deeming provision of Explanation to Sec.73 of the I. Tax Act, the aggregate of the business profit / loss has to be worked out based on the non-speculative profits; either it is from share delivery or from share derivative. The net of the same is profit as such question of applying the deeming fraction of Explanation to Sec.73 of the I. T. Act does not arise. The assessee's case is fully covered by the decision of ITAT, Kolkata, in the case of ITO, Wd-3(1)/Kol Vs Lotus Homes Ltd. (supra) as well a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income which is chargeable under the heads "Interest on securities"."Income from house property", "capital gains" and "Income from other sources", or a company, the principal of which is the business of banking or the granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies, such company shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares." There cannot be any dispute after a plain reading of the above provisions that if a part of the business of an assessee consists of purchases and sale of shares of other companies, the said assessee will be deemed to be carrying on speculation business to the extent of purchase and sale of such shares. The AO in this case, has taken exactly the same view and treated the share trading loss as deemed speculative in nature. Thus, the above conclusion of the AO is clearly in tune with the above quoted provisions. 4.3. He further submitted that the reliance put by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of ITAT, Special Bench, Mumbai appears to be erroneous and misplaced one in view of the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 43(5) of the Act it is in our considered view that the aggregation of the share trading loss and profit from derivative transactions should be done before the application of the Explanation to section 73 of the IT Act is applicable. 6.2. It is further observed that the ld. CIT(A) has properly concluded that the decision of the Hon'ble Kolkata Special Bench in the case of Shree Capital Services Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the present facts of the case. 6.3. In view of the above findings we are in agreement with the observations made by ld. CIT(A) at paras 2.7 to 2.10 and therefore we upheld the action of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 7. In the result ground no.1 to 3 of the revenue's appeal are dismissed. 8. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no.4 is relating to deletion of addition of Rs. 83,662/- made u/s 14A of the IT Act with Rule 8D of IT Rules. 9 The brief facts of this issue is that while doing the scrutiny assessment the AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 83,662/- by observing as under :- "In course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to give details of expenses related to exempt income. In response to the same the assessee relying on t....