BAY CAPITAL INDIA FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 55, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order - 08/04/2025

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 28.10.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019-20.

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, setting off non-grandfathered (taxable) short term and long-term capital losses totaling to Rs.3,59,84,420 against the grandfathered (exempt) long term capital gain under the India-Mauritius Tax Convention amounting to Rs.38,48,55,881/- 2. On the facts and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2021-22.”

8. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that during the year under consideration, the assessee earned long-term capital gains of Rs.38,48,55,851/-, which were claimed as non-taxable under section 195 r.w. Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA on the basis that since these shares were acquired before 01.04.2017, therefore, the gain arising therefrom is not taxable in India. Further, there is also no dispute regarding the fact that during the year under consideration, the assessee incurred long-term and short-term capital losses total amounting to Rs.3,59,84,420/- from the sale of shares which were acquired after 01.04.2017. As is evident from the record, the assessee in its return of income for the year under consideration, claimed the long-term capital gains earned by it on the grandfathered sale as exempt from taxation in India, while the long-term and short-term capital losses from the non-grandfathered sale of shares was carried forward to the subsequent year. However, the AO-CPC, vide intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, set off the long-term and short-term capital losses incurred by the assessee from the non-grandfathered sale against the long-term capital gains earned by the assessee from the grandfathered sale. As per the assessee, by setting off the long-term and short-term capital losses against the long-term capital gains, which is exempt from tax in India as per Article 13(4) of the India- Mauritius DTAA, the Revenue has restricted the benefit granted to the assessee under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA r.w. Section 90(2) of the Act. Thus, as per the assessee, the entire amount of long-term capital gains, i.e., Rs.38,58,55,851/-, from the sale of shares acquired prior to 01.04.2017 should be treated as non-taxable in India in view of the provisions of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. Further, since during the year under consideration, the assessee did not earn any long-term capital gains which is taxable in India, the long-term and short-term capital losses incurred during the year from the sale of shares which are not grandfathered should be allowed to be carried forward to the subsequent years.

“6. We heard the rival submission and perused the documents available on record. There is no dispute that the assessee is entitled to get exemption under Article-13(4) of DTAA amount to Rs. 26,36,44,954/-. But the dispute between the parties is whether it will be adjusted with the brought forwarded loss or not. Considering the plain reading of the section that capital loss, after being carried forward, can be set off only against income under the head capital gains. Therefore, existence of a taxable income is a precondition for a set of losses against such income. In this appeal, the gains of Rs. 26,36,44,954/- are admittedly exempt by virtue of article 13(4) of the treaty. The said gains, therefore, cannot be termed as income for the purpose of section 74 of the Act. We relied on the orders of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT-Mumbai in the cases of Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd(supra) and J.P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Ltd(supra). In our considered view the answer is against revenue. The exempted income is not a part of taxable Gross Total Income. The non-grandfathered LTCG will be adjusted with brought forwarded loss, following the order of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd.(supra). The orders which are relied on by the ld. DR are distinguishable. The impugned final assessment order is dismissed. The appeal of the assessee is succeeded.”

“6.4.2. It is noted that, Article 31 of Viena convention on the law of treaties states that, treaties should be interpreted in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaties in their context, and in the light of the its object and purpose. It also states that the context for the purpose of interpretation of the treaty shall comprise in addition to the test, including its preamble and annexes. One of the most difficult areas of treaty interpretation is how to cope up with silence of absent terms, if the treaty dose not expressly make provision for the matter in issue, should it be assumed that it is not covered depends on the nature of the treaty and the interaction of the various elements of Viena rules. In the present facts of the case the double taxation avoidance agreements is based on the principle to provide tax relief by preventing double taxation. 6.4.3. As per India Mauritius DTAA read with section 90(2), capital gains are to be taxed based on the place of residence of the recipient, by granting relief of tax on such gains in India. Admittedly, the treaty is silent in respect of the loss if earned by an assessee and leaves it unclear whether, one has to deduce to interpret loss being included along with gain. This in our opinion can be possible subject to later negotiations and are not regulated by the treaty. The nature of the treaty in the present fact is key factor and therefore, what is not expressly granted is not permitted. 6.4.4. In so far as, applicability of good faith in interpreting the treaty provisions, we note that good faith differs from most of the other elements under the Viena rules. It applies to the whole process of interpreting for treaty rather than solely to the meaning of particular words or phrases within it. Although, it is difficult to give precise content to the concept generally, it does include one principle that applies to the interpretation of specific terms used in a treaty, commonly described as the principal “effectiveness”. The aspect of the principle of effectiveness is preferring an interpretation that fulfils the aims of the treaty and the intent of the contracting states as given in various Articles. 6.4.5. Applying the above rules to Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA, it is clear that non taxability of the capital gains in India prior to 01/04/2017 cannot act to the disadvantage of the tax payer. This is because section 90(2) is clear to mean that Government of India entered into DTAA with the Government of Mauritius, according to which the capital gains is not taxable in India. However, the provisions of the act shall apply to the extent they are more beneficial to the tax payer. 6.4.6. The Ld.AR in support relied on following observations from the decision of Hon’ble Pune Bench in case of Patni Computers Systems Ltd., reported in (2008) 114 ITD 159 8. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in binding on us under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The prevailing legal position, therefore, is that once an income is held to be taxable in a tax jurisdiction under a double taxation avoidance agreement, and unless there is a specific mention that it can also be taxed in the other tax jurisdiction, the other tax jurisdiction is denuded of its powers to tax the same. To that extent, the worldwide basis of taxation in the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is no longer applicable in a situation provisions of a double taxation avoidance agreement entered into under section 90 apply. The next question then arises whether in a loss situation in the PE State, as is the case before us, can the assessee be forced to go for taxation in accordance with the provisions of the treaty with the said PE State. The provisions of section 90(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act are quite unambiguous and categorical in this regard. Section 90(2), inter alia, provides that when the Government of India has entered into a double taxation avoidance agreement with Government of any other country, "in relation to an assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the extent these are more beneficial to that assessee". Section 90 only grants relief; it does not impose any liability. Even without such provisions, Courts in US and Germany, as indeed in other parts of the world, have held that a treaty cannot act to the disadvantage to the taxpayer. In other words, therefore, merely because India has entered into a double taxation avoidance agreement with a foreign country, the assessee cannot be denied the taxability under the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act. The scheme of the double taxation avoidance agreement cannot, therefore, be thrust upon the assessee. In this particular case, it is obviously to the advantage of the assessee that he is taxed in India on the basis of his worldwide income, which includes losses incurred abroad, and not to invoke the provisions of the India- Japan tax treaty. The provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act must, therefore, apply to that extent. Then comes the objection of the revenue that in the event of the assessee not opting for treatment on the basis of India-Japan tax treaty this year, he will be shut out from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years. We see no support for this proposition. Under the Income- tax Act, every year is an independent unit, and it is for the assessee to examine whether or not, in the light of the applicable legal provisions and in the light of the precise factual position, the provisions of the Income-tax Act are beneficial to him or that of the applicable double taxation avoidance agreement. There is no specific bar on such an approach of the assessee, and in the absence thereof, we cannot impose the same. In any event, this question is relevant only in the year in which the assessee claims the treaty benefits and not in this year in which the provisions of the Act are clearly more beneficial to the assessee, and, therefore, the assessee does not claim the treaty protection. Just because the assessee may, in Assessing Officer's perception, may claim treaty protection in a subsequent year, the treaty provisions cannot be thrust on the assessee this year as well. In this view of the matter, the assessee was indeed eligible to claim taxation on worldwide basis, disregard the scheme of taxability under the India-Japan tax treaty, and, in effect, claim deduction of loss incurred by the PE in Japan. The CIT(A) was thus justified in his conclusion to the effect that losses of assessee's PE in Japan are to be taken into account while computing assessee's total income liable to tax in India. Now coming to the contention whether each transaction can be considered as a separate source of income. 6.5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the following observations by Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Montgomery Emerging Market Fund reported in (2006) 100 ITD 217 in support of the above argument. Hon’ble Special bench observed the distinction between 'source of income' and 'head of income' and that there can be multiple source of income under the same head of income. Hon’ble Special Bench also observed that, what is taxed by the Act is not different source of income, independently and that income from different source is clubbed under respective heads that are finally aggregated into the total income. The relevant extract of the observations of the Hon’ble Special Bench in this regard held as under:- "44. Therefore, it is very apparent that source of income does not mean head of income. The Assessing Officer has proceeded on a hypothesis as if the source of income is the head of income itself. This is not a proper construction of law provided in section 70. Short term capital gains/loss as well as long term capital gains/loss both are computed under the head "capital gains" for the aggregation of income culminating into total income which is taxable under the Income-tax Act. What is taxed by the Income-tax Act is not different sources of income independently, but income from different sources clubbed under respective heads and finally aggregated into the total income. The classification of income under different heads for computing the total income does not interfere with the independent character of different sources of income available to an assessee. Both, short term capital gains/loss and long term capital gains/loss are different sources of income, falling under the same head "capital gains". Even under short term capital gains, different transactions will be different sources of income resulting in short term capital gains/loss. Likewise, different transactions of long term capital assets will be different sources of income for an assessee to arrive at long term capital gains/loss. This is reflected in the scheme of computation of capital gains provided in section 48 where gains or loss is computed on the basis of individual asset and transaction and not on the basis of class of assets. Therefore, we have to agree with the argument of the learned senior counsel that every transaction of a property is a different source of income for the assessee. Head of income is not the source of income. Source of income is having the direct nexus with the stream or fountain out of which the income springs to the assessee. Head of income is provided for clubbing purpose of those like minded incomes derived from different sources for the purpose of aggregation and allowable deductions. (emphasis supplied) 6.5.1. From the above one can infer that there is no basis in grouping long term/short term capital assets. It can also be inferred that, long term and short term are different sources of income. Further, Hon’ble Special bench also observed that even the different short term assets and long term assets involved in the respective transactions are again different sources of income. In the present facts of the case, loss earned from sale of shares of Maharana and the gain earned from sale of shares of Maharana are therefore different sources of income. And further as per the observations of Hon’ble Special

Bench, even under short term/long term computation, every transaction is a different source. 6.5.2. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Credit Suisse (Singapore) Co. (Mauritius) Ltd. In and 1108/Mum/2022, upheld the theory of the segregation of capital gain for drawing DTAA to the extent of more beneficial to the assessee. The relevant finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: “8. In the case of Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauritius) Ltd.(supra), the assessee had claimed benefit of Article -13 of the DTAA in respect of 'Capital Gains' and had sought to carry forward capital losses of the earlier years as the same could not be set off against capital gains for the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected assessee's claim of carry forward of capital losses on the pretext that since the assessee had claimed benefit of exemption under Article 13 of the DTAA on capital gains, capital losses are also exempt. When the issue reached before the Tribunal, the Coordinate Bench placing reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Western India Oil Distributing Co. Ltd., 249 ITR 517 (SC) and CIT vs. Manmohan Das 59 ITR 699(SC) and also after considering CBDT Circular No.22 of 1944 dated 29/07/1944 held that the assessee is justified in claiming carry forward of brought forward losses of the earlier years to the subsequent years and at the same time upheld assessee's claim of capital gains as exempt under the provisions of Article -13 of the DTAA. Thus, the Tribunal accepted the theory of segregation of capital gains and capital losses for drawing benefits of DTAA/the Act to the extent they are more beneficial to the assessee.

9. In the case of Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Ltd. (supra), the Co- ordinate Bench placing reliance on the decision of Flagship Indian Investment Co (Mauritius) Ltd.(supra) reiterated the position that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Article-13 of DTAA in respect of capital gains and allowed carry forward of capital loss under the provisions of the Act. For the sake of completeness relevant extracts of the findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced herein under:- "12. ……….We are unable to comprehend that now when admittedly the short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee from transfer of securities during the year in question are exempt under Article 13 of the India-Mauritius Tax Treaty, where would there be any occasion for seeking adjustment of the brought forward STCL against such exempt income. Our aforesaid view is squarely covered by the order of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Flagship Indian Investment Company (Mauritius) Lid. (supra). In the case of the assessee before the Tribunal that pertained to A. Y. 2005-06 the assessee had brought fonvard capital loss of Rs. 87,06,49,335/-from transfer of securities in A.Y. 2002-03. The aforesaid loss was determined in the hands of the assessee vide an intimation under Sec. 143(1) for A.Y 2002-03. Observing, that since the capital gains were not taxable in India as per Article 13 of the Indian- Mauritius Tax Treaty, the A.O being of the view that capital loss would also be exempted, and therefore, the assessee would not be entitled to claim the set-off of the same against the capital gains for the relevaye assestment years. On benefit of carry forward of such capital losses of the earlier years, thus, declined the appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O. On further appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was fully justified in claiming the carry forward of the capital losses of the earlier years to the subsequent years, and both the A.O and the CIT(A) were in error in not allowing the same. Accordingly, the A.O was directed to allow the carry forward of the capital losses of the earlier vears to the subsequent years, according to law. As in the aforesaid case, in the case of the present assessee before us, as the short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee from transfer of securities during the year in question are admittedly exempt from tax under Article 13 of the India- Mauritius tax treaty, therefore, the brought forward STCL of the previous years was rightly carried forward by the assessee to the subsequent years……… The Tribunal further held: ……….. Now coming to the claim of the revenue that as Sec. 45 of the Act, by virtue of India-Mauritius tax treaty was rendered unworkable in respect of "capital gains" derived by the assessee from transfer of securities in India, therefore, the "capital losses" would also not form part of the assessee's "total income", and thus, could not be computed under the Act. we are afraid does not find favour with us. Apropos the aforesaid observation of the A.O, we are of the considered view that the same had been arrived at by loosing sight of the fact that the "capital losses" in question had been brought forward from the earlier years and had been determined and allowed to be carried forward by the A. while framing the assessment for A.Y 2012-13, vide his order passed u/s 143(3), date 19-3- 2015 and had not arisen during the year under consideration i.e A.Y 2013- 14. Accordingly, the claim of the A.O that the "capital losses" b/forward from the earlier years, pertaining to a source of income that was exempt from tax was thus not to be carried forward to the subsequent years, being devoid of any merit, is thus rejected. At this stage, we may herein observe that it is for the assessee to examine whether or not in the light of the applicable legal provisions and the precise factual position the provisions of the IT Act are beneficial to him or that of the applicable DTAA. In any case, the tax treaty cannot be thrust upon an assesses. In case the assessee during one year does not opt for the tax treaty, it would not be precluded from availing the benefits of the said treaty in the subsequent years. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the order of the ITAT, Pune in Palm Computer Systems Ltd. (supra). We thus in terms of our aforesaid observations, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O/DRP, who as noticed by us hereinabove had sought adjustment of the b/forward STCL against the exempt short term and long term capital gains earned by the assessee during the year in question, thus 'set aside' the order of the A.O in context of the issue under consideration. Accordingly, we direct the A.O to allow carry forward of the b/forward STCL of Rs. 3926,36,70,910/- to the subsequent years." From the reading of above decisions, it is evident that there is no impedement in segregating capital losses and capital gains from different source of income under the head 'capital gains' for the purpose of claiming the benefit of DTAA/ provisions of the Act as the case may be, whichever is more beneficial to the assessee in terms of section 90(2) of the Act.”

7. It is relevant to understand the scheme of the act, to find out if the capital gains earned by the assessee from sale of shares that does not form part of total income of virtue of DTAA would enter the computation of total income. Section 4 of the act is the charging section that describes the rates on income charged for a particular assessment year. Section 2(45) defines the total income to be the amount of income referred to section 5 and computed in the manner laid down in the Act. Section 14 of the act categorises income under various heads of income like salaries, income from house property, profit and gains from business of profession, capital gains and income from other sources. Section 66 to 80 deals with the aggregation of income and set off /carry forward of loss.

7.1. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. M. N. Raigi reported in (1949) 17 ITR 180 considered as to whether share income of a partner which does not form part of the total income, is to be added to the total income in order to determine the rate at which income tax was payable by the partner. Section 16 of Income Tax Act 1922, corresponding to section 66 of the Income tax Act 1961 was subject matter for consideration in the aforesaid decision. Hon’ble Court after analysing the scheme of computation observed and held as under : Now, the scheme of the Indian Income-tax Act is that income, profits and gains of an assessee are liable to tax subject to certain exemptions and exceptions. Although certain sums may be exempted from taxation, still they may form part of the total income of an assessee in order to determine the rate at which income- tax is payable. Therefore it follows that the total income of an assessee is not necessarily wholly subject to tax. Portions of it may be exempt from taxation and yet may be computed for the purpose of determining the rate at which tax is payable. Mr. Joshi's contention is that all sums which are exempted from taxation must still be brought into the total income of the assessee for the purpose of determining the rate at which income-tax is payable, except where the statute in terms excludes these sums from the total income of the assessee. It is pointed out that in Section 4, sub-section (3), certain incomes, profits or gains falling within the classes mentioned in that sub-section are not to be included in the total income of the person receiving the income, and Mr. Joshi argues that except in these cases, in every other case, although the tax is not payable on certain sums, they must be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. It is therefore argued that although under Section 25(4) an exemption is given to the assessee because there is a succession to the business carried on and no tax is payable by the assessee, the sum which is exempted under this sub-section does form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. Total income is defined in Section 2(15) of the Act, and it means total amount of income, profits and gains computed in the manner laid down in this Act. Therefore, it would be erroneous to suggest that total income is to be determined only in the light of Section 4, sub-section (3), of the Act. How total income is to be computed and determined depends upon the various provisions contained in the Act as a whole. Then we might look at various sections which provide for exemptions from the payment of tax. There is Section 7 which contains various provisos which cover sums not liable to tax. Similarly Section 8. Section 14 also contains exemptions with regard to certain sums on which no tax is payable, and Section 15 contains exemptions in cases of life insurance. It will be noticed that the language used in all these sections, to which I have referred, is similar, if not indentical, with the language used in Section 25(4), viz., that the tax is not payable on these different sums. Now, if Mr. Joshi's contention was sound, then with regard to these various exemptions which I have enumerated, although tax is not payable, they should all be included in the total income for the purpose of determining the rate payable in respect of income-tax. Now, the short and conclusive answer to that contention is Section 16 of the Indian Income-tax Act. It is that section which in terms includes in the total income of an assessee only certain sums which are exempted from the payment of tax. Therefore, by implication, where the sums are not included in the total income by Section 16, those sums are not only exempted from the payment of tax, but they are also excluded from the total income. Now, when we look at Section 16, it does not include the sum covered by Section 25(4) as a sum which is to be included in the total income of the assessee. The scheme, therefore, of the Income-tax Act is clear and is very different from what Mr. Joshi suggests it is. The scheme is that wherever one finds an exemption or exclusion from payment of tax, the exemption or exclusion also operates for the purpose of computing the total income. Not only is the sum not liable to tax, but it is also not to form part of the total income for the purpose of determining the rate. When the Legislature indends that certain sums, although not liable to tax, should be included in the total income, it expressly so provides, as it is done in Section 16, and therefore Prima facie, when we come to Section 25(4) and when we find that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the sum received by him as his share of the partnership, that sum cannot and does not form part of his total income. Mr. Joshi has not succeeded in pointing out to us any provision in the Act whereby this particular sum covered by Section 25 (4) has been made a part of the total income of the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, the share of the profit of the assessee in the firm of S.B. Billimoria & Co., in the accounting year 1942 cannot be included in the total income of the assessee for ascertaining the rate of income-tax. 7.2. It is thus clear from the above observation from the Hon’ble Bombay high court that, income does not form part of the total income do not enter the computation of the total income at all applying the above principle above ratio to the present facts of the case the capital gains that are already exempt under the DTAA which are binding on the parties being exempt in India, cannot enter the computation of total income of assessee in India. Therefore, setting off the loss suffered by the assessee from sale of shares of Maharana, against the gains earned from sale of shares of Maharana would tantamount to taxing the gain in India which is in violation of Article 13(3)(4) of DTAA as it stood prior to amendment.