THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17 MUMBAI vs. ALKA BHOSLE
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are intended to be cumulative. The reasoning was based on the plain reading of the subsection, which outlines three distinct requirements that must all be fulfilled for the provision to apply. The Tribunal noted that the sale of units in this case took place after the expiry of three months from the record date, thus failing to satisfy the second condition. This interpretation was supported by the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill of 2001, which introduced the sub-section, and a judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Shambhu Mercantile Ltd. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed as lacking merit and not raising a substantial question of law.
What were the facts?
The appeal by the Revenue concerns Assessment Year 2004-05. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee purchased units within three months prior to the record date but sold them more than three months after the record date. The Revenue contended that Section 94(7) would apply because the units were acquired within the specified period, even though they were sold later. The assessee's case involved a sale of units beyond the three-month period post the record date.
What were the issues?
1. Whether clauses (a), (b), and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be satisfied independently or cumulatively. Assessee's Contention: The assessee implicitly argued that since the sale of units occurred beyond the three-month period after the record date, the conditions of Section 94(7) were not met. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that Section 94(7) would apply because the units were acquired within three months of the record date, irrespective of the sale happening beyond the three-month period after the record date. The Revenue's argument hinges on the interpretation that only the acquisition clause needed to be satisfied.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) : The following question of law has been formulated in the appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ITAT was right in holding that clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are to be satisfied independently or cumulatively.”
Section 94(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the material time, reads as follows: “(7) Where (a) any person buys or acquires any securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record date; CNR No : HCBM020211902009 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 (b) such person sells or transfers such securities or unit within a period of three months after such date; (c) the dividend or income on such securities or unit received or receivable by such person is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising to him on account of such purchase and sale of securities or unit, to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of dividend or income received or receivable on such securities or unit, shall be ignored for the purposes of computing his income chargeable to tax.”
The dispute in the present case relates to Assessment Year 200405. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the conditions spelt out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub section (7) are cumulative. In the present case, the assessee had purchased certain units within a period of less than three months from the record date, but admittedly, the units were sold beyond a period of three months from the record date. The contention of the Revenue is that though the units were, as a matter of fact, sold beyond a period of three months of the record date, the provisions of Section 94(7) would apply since they were acquired within a period of three months of the record date.
There is no merit in the submission. Subsection 7 of Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Section 94 spelt out three requirements; these being (i) The purchase or acquisition of any of the securities or units should take place within a period of three months prior to the record date; (ii) The sale or transfer should take place within a period of three months after the record date; and (iii) The dividend or income received or receivable should be exempt. In the event that these three conditions are fulfilled, the loss, if any, arising from the purchase or sale of securities or units, has to be ignored for the purpose of computing the income chargeable to tax, to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of dividend or income received or receivable. Exfacie, all the three conditions that are spelt out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Subsection 7, must be fulfilled before the consequence that is envisaged in the section comes into force. In the present case, the sale of the units has taken place after the expiry of a period of three months from the record date. Hence, the second condition spelt out for the applicability of subsection 7 would not come into force.
The Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill of 2001 by which subsection 7 was inserted, would Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 make it clear that the requirements were intended to be cumulative. The Memorandum inter alia states as follows: “It is proposed to insert a new subsection (7) in the said section to provide that where any person buys or acquires securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record date fixed for declaration of dividend or distribution of income in respect of the securities or unit, and sells or transfers the same within a period of three months after such record date, and the dividend or income received or receivable is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising from such purchase or sale shall be ignored to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of such dividend or income, in the computation of the income, chargeable to tax, of such person.” (emphasis supplied).
By the Finance (No.2) Bill of 2004, the provisions of sub clause (b) were amended so as to provide a period of nine months for the transfer or sale of a unit. The Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance (No.2) Bill of 2004 provide as follows: “It has been noticed that the condition specified in subsection (7) of section 94 requiring an investor to hold units for at least ninety days after the record date did not provide the desired effect. In order to provide further deterrence to taxavoidance, it is necessary to provide for a longer period of holding of units after a record date. It is accordingly proposed to amend the said subsection so as to provide that where any person buys or acquires any unit within a period of three months prior to the record date and sells or transfers the same Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 within a period of nine months after such record date, and the dividend or income received or receivable is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising from such sale and purchase shall be ignored to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of such income or dividend, in computation of the income, chargeable to tax, of such person.”
From the Memoranda explaining respectively the Finance Bills of 2001 and 2004, it is evident that the conditions prescribed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Subsection 7 are intended Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
More judgments on Section 94(7)
- ACIT, Parel, Mumbai vs Kakk Family Private Trust, Bandra(E)ITA 543/MUM/2026[2016]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2026
- Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 3519/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2016-17
- Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 3518/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
- Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 3517/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2015-16
- Gajanan Enterprises, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 3516/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026