TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rent issues in its grounds of appeal and each issue is dealt in ground wise. Ground No. 1 raised by the revenue is as under: - "1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing assessee's claim of carry forward of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs..17,86,21,665/- arising from sale of equity shares, eligible to set off against Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of any subsequent assessment year which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act." 4. Brief facts relating to the above grounds of appeal are, search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act (for short "Act") were initiated on ABIL Group on 21.07.2017 and various residences of the partners/directors of the group situated at Mumbai and Pune were covered by search action. The assessee Shri Avinash N. Bhosale is a promoter and founder of ABIL Group. The group companies are primarily engaged in infrastructure development, real estate development and hospitality services. As the case of the assessee is covered under search action all the cases were centralized u/s. 127(2) of the Act and accordingly, notices u/s. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DR relied on Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. DCIT [130 taxmann.com 295] and she brought to our notice Para No. 6.1 of the above order. Further she relied on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of Nikhilsawhney v. ACIT [119 taxman.com 372]. she submitted that Hon'ble High Court has not considered the decision of the Bombay and ITAT Delhi Benches. 9. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the issue involved in the cases relied on by the Ld. DR is not the issue raised by the department in the grounds of appeal. He relied on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). On merits in support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions: - (i). M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd, Mumbai v. DCIT [58 taxmnn.com 115]. (ii). ACIT v. Smt Gauri Avinash Bhosale in ITA.No. 1303/PUN/2017. (iii). Nomura India Investment Fund Mother fund v. Addl. DIT (IT) in ITA.No. 8140/Mum/2010 dated 24.12.2019. (iv). Netesoft India Limited v. DCIT in ITA.No. 5359/Mum/2017 dated 20.12.2019. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the record that the assessee has claimed carryforward of long term capital loss which assessee has incurred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....45; thirdly, section 47 does not enlist any such exception that transfer of long term equity shares/funds are not treated as transfer for the purpose of section 45 and section 48 provides for computation of capital gain, which is arrived at after deducting cost of acquisition i.e. cost of any improvement and expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of capital asset, even for arriving of gain in transfer of equity shares; lastly, section 70 & 71 elaborates the mechanism for set off of capital gain. Nowhere, any exception has been made/ carved out with regard to Long term capital gain arising on sale of equity shares. The whole genre of income under the head capital gain on transfer of shares is a source, which is taxable under the Act. If the entire source is exempt or is considered as not to be included while computing the total income then in such a case, the profit or loss resulting from such a source do not enter into the computation at all. However, if a part of the source is exempt by virtue of particular "provision" of the Act for providing benefit to the assessee, then in our considered view it cannot be held that the entire source will not enter into computation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club, wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that "under the Income tax Act 1961 there are certain incomes which do not enter into the computation of the total income at all. In computing the total income of a resident assessee, certain incomes are not included under s.10 of the Act. It depends on the particular case; where the Act is made inapplicable to income from a certain source under the scheme of the Act, the profit and loss resulting from such a source will not enter into the computation at all. But there are other sources which, for certain economic reasons, are not included or excluded by the will of the Legislature. In such a case, one must look to the specific exclusion that has been made." The Hon'ble High Court was besieged with the following question "Whether under s.10(27) read with s.70 of the I.T.Act, 1961, was the assessee entitled to set off the loss on the two heads, namely, Broodmares Account and the Pig Account, against its income of other sources under the head "Business" "Their Lordships after analysing the provisions of section 70 and section 10(27) observed in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a source the income in respect of which is excluded in the computation of total income. How this question will have to be viewed, has been looked into by the Supreme Court in several decisions to some of which our attention was drawn." After discussing the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically the decision of in the case of Karamchand Premchand (supra), the Hon'ble High Court came to the following conclusion: "cl.(27) of s.10 excludes in express terms only "any income derived from a business of live-stock breeding or poultry or dairy farming. It does not exclude the business of livestock breeding or poultry or dairy farming from the operation of the Act. Therefore, the losses suffered by the assessee in the broodmares account and in the pig account were admissible deductions in computing its total income" Thus, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is clearly applicable and accordingly we follow the same in the present case. 9. Now coming to the argument of the learned DR and learned CIT(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt then loss will also not be taken into computation of the income, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n allowing the loss to be "carried forward". Conversely, if the loss arising in the previous year was under a head not chargeable to tax, it could not be allowed to be carried forward and absorbed against income in a subsequent year from a taxable source." The ratio and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court would not apply here in this case, because the concept of income includes loss will apply only when entire source is exempt or is not liable to tax and not in the case where only one of the income falling within such source is treated as exempt. The Hon'ble Apex Court on the other hand, itself has stated that if loss from the source or head of income is not liable for tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, then it need not be computed or shown in the return and Assessing Officer also need not assess it. This distinction has to be kept in mind. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club have discussed the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the same will not apply in such cases. Thus, in our conclusion, we hold that section 10(38) excludes in expressed terms only the income arising from transfer of Long term capital asset being equit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons: - "The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of construction and power generation. He is carrying his business through following sole proprietary firms: a) M/s SwapnaliConstrcutions b) M/s Amit Constructions c) M/s AvinashBhosaleWind mill farm The books of account and financial statements are drawn up separately. Accordingly, for assessment year 2009-10, books of account and financial statements of these businesses are drawn up separately. The books of account of these business do not reflect investments, income from which is exempt from tax. All such investments have been reflected in his individual separate set of books maintained on consolidated basis. Therefore, there is no question of making any disallowance u/s 14A as far as income from these above mentioned three proprietary businesses are concerned. The submission of assessee is duly considered and the same is not acceptable. On Verification of P & L A/c. it was observed that assessee has incurred certain expense on salary, administrative expenses etc. and whole expenditure has been claimed as business expenditure. On the other sided, assessee has made i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....principle of apportionment which prior to the amendment of section 14A would not have applied to expenditure incurred in a composite and indivisible business which results in taxable and non taxable income, must after the enactment of the provisions apply even to such a situation iv) The expression "expenditure incurred" in section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc. in respect of which allowances are provided for; v) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 14A are intended to enforce and implement the provisions of sub section (1). The object of subsection (2) is to provide a uniformity of method where the AO is, on the basis of the accounts of the assessee, not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act." 14. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee and calculated the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act as below: - Investments yielding exempt income As on 31.03.2015 (Rs.) As on 31.03.2014 (Rs.) Investment in equity shares (Quoted and unq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up company M/s. ABIL Corporation Pvt. Ltd., towards share of the assessee in the common ERP Software. Assessing Officer rejected the same and treated the above said expenses as capital expenses and Accordingly, disallowed. 22. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Assessee submitted the following submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) for the sake of brevity it is reproduced below: - "a) During the financial year 2014-15, the appellant had debited software renewal charges of Rs. 2,66,855/-to Profit and Loss Account under the group 'Repairs and Maintenance. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, the appellant had submitted regarding these expenses. b) The appellant is a promoter of ABIL Group and director of many of the companies of ABIL Group. M/s ABIL Corporation Pvt Ltd is one of the Group company of the ABIL Group. Many of the entities of the ABIL Group maintain their accounts and financial data in common ERP software. The usage license of this software is required to be renewed after certain period. This is the recurring expense. These license renewal charges are paid towards maintaining of the usage facility ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as revenue in nature until and unless it is established that the software installed has a very long lasting life and enduring benefit on a capital asset. The relevant observations made by the Tribunal in para 12 of the said decision, for the sake of convenience, are reproduced as under: "...........Whether any particular expense falls in the capital field or revenue field has to be judged, looking to the nature of expenses and various tests laid down by the courts from time immemorial. In this age of computerization, various softwares are developed for smooth functioning of various business needs that helps business to run effectively, efficiently and profitably. The softwares keep on changing at a very fast pace with the growing requirement in the day-to day business. Most of the softwares become obsolete in short span and new and upgraded version are required for better functioning. Unless, it has been brought on record that the software installed has a very long lasting life and enduring benefit on a capital asset, then, probably it can be said that it may not be of revenue in nature. However, the software application, per-se, do not, in any manner, supplants the so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tems and employment of special professionals to carry on the tasks that the software in fact performs, would have fallen undoubtedly in the revenue stream. Taking these into account and the further circumstance that the software itself would have run its course or life span as it were, given that the earlier assessment year in question is 2008-09, we are of the opinion that the question of law framed is to be % answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal, are consequently allowed. No order as to costs. Copy of the order of Hon. Delhi High Court is enclosed herewith as Annexure 11. d) However, without considering the submission of the appellant, the Ld disallowed repairs maintenance expenses incurred towards software license renewal charges of Rs. 2,66,855/- by treating the same as 'Capital Expenditure' and added the same in the income of the appellant. e) In view of the above the appellant prays Your Honor to direct the Ld AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,66,855/- made in the income of the appellant." 23. After considering detailed submissions Ld.CIT(A) allowed the ground raised by the assessee with the following observation: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and material placed on record, we observe from the record that Ld.CIT(A) allowed the software licence charges expenses claimed by the assessee by relying on the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of DCIT v. Integrated Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 3325/Mum/2012. After considering the detailed findings of the Ld.CIT(A) we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, the grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed. 26. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 27. With regard to appeal filed by the Revenue for the A.Y. 2016-17, revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - "1. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. CITYA) is justified in allowing assessee's claim of set off brought forward Long Term Capital loss of Rs. 2,59, 92,608/- against Long Term Capital Gain arising from redemption of debentures which do not form part of total income as envisaged in the provisions of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1962. 2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to exempt income earned without appreci....