ITO, CORPORATE WARD-2(1), CHENNAI vs. EUROFLORA BIOLAND PVT LTD, CHENNAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Revenue , aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-9, Chennai dated 26.05.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 2

loss u/s.73(1) by the ld. Assessing Officer as against business loss

claimed by the assessee.

the computation of income, the assessee has incurred loss of `5,24,494/- from business and short term capital loss or `15,61,126 /

- from trading in shares during the year which resulted in a total loss of `20,86,620/- which has been carried forward to next year. The AO

from the details of transaction in shares filed by the assessee and on

verification of Form-10-DB issued by the broker of the assessee M/s.

Religare Securities Ltd., noticed that the assessee has shown loss from delivery based transaction of `15,62,126/- under the head

‘income from short term capital gains’ and loss from non-delivery based transaction and future trading of `38,65,615/- under the head

‘income from business’. The AO observed that as per Section 73(1)

any loss computed in respect of a speculation business carried on by

the assessee shall not be set off except against profits and gains if

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 3

any of another speculation business. The AO asked the assessee as

to why explanation to Section 73 should not be invoked and the loss

in share trading should not be treated as speculation loss to be

adjusted only against profits and gains of speculation business of

current year or subsequent eight years.

3.1 The assessee’s AR vide letter dated 03.11.2003 submitted

before the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee’s case is not

coved by the provisions of explanation to Section 73 and relied on

certain case laws. The AO distinguished the Hon’ble High Court of

Calcutta decision relied on by the assessee in the case of CIT vs

Park View Properties Ltd., 261 ITR 473 by observing that the loss incurred by the assessee from share trading of `38,65,615/- is more

than the income under other heads and therefore provisions of

Section 73 would be attracted in the assessee’s case. The AO also

observed that the loss from delivery based transaction amounting to `15,62,126/- offered under the head ‘income from short term capital

gains’ by the assessee should also be treated under the head

‘business’. Accordingly, the AO by relying on certain case laws, treated the entire loss of `54,27,741/- (`38,65,615/- + `15,62,126/-)

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 4

as speculation loss from the business of purchase and sale of shares

as income from business and allowed to be carried forward for four

assessment years to be adjusted only against speculation profit.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried

the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.2 The ld.A.R contended before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the

assessment order, the AO accepted that the principle business of the

appellant company is in the business of trading in shares and

therefore the provisions of Explanation to Section 73 will not be

attracted. It is the contention of the appellant that the following heads

of income are excluded in explanation to Section 73 of the Act:

(i) that the principle business of which is in trading in shares, (ii) that the principle business of which is in banking or granting of loans and advances (iii) that the gross total consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads “interest on securities”, “income from house property”, “capital gains” and “income from other sources”.

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 5

Therefore, the contention of the ld.A.R is that because the AO

himself had accepted that the assessee’s principle business is trading

in shares, the exception clause will apply and accordingly the

explanation to Section 73 is not applicable.

3.3 On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the exception clauses

included only wherein the gross total income consisted mainly of

income which is chargeable under the heads interest on securities,

income from house property, capital gains and income from other

sources or the principle business is banking or granting of loans and

advances. The Finance Act 2014 with effect from 01.04.2015 also

included the principle business of trading in shares as one of the

exceptions. The assessment year involved in the case of the

appellant is 2008-09 and the provisions existed at that time for the

Assessment Year 2008-09 alone are applicable. The amendment

made with effect from 01.04.2015 is not applicable for the

Assessment Year 2008-09. For the Assessment Year 2008-09, even

if the principle business was trading in shares, all transactions in the

nature of purchase and sale of shares of other companies was

deemed to be considered as speculation business and accordingly

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 6

the AO treated the entire transactions in purchase and sale of shares

as speculation business. In the return of income, the assessee had

shown income from non-delivery based trading at a loss of `38,65,615/- under the head business income and also offered loss

under the delivery based purchase and sale of shares at `15,62,126/- under the head short term capital loss.

3.4 The loss on account of business of purchase and sale of

non-delivery based transactions are adjusted against the income received from consultation and net business income of `5,24,494/-

was arrived at. As per the appellant, the non-delivery based trading is

not a speculation business as per clause (d) of Section 43(5) of the

Act. Clause (d) provides that the trading in derivatives in a recognized

stock exchange is excluded from the speculative transaction.

Therefore the contention of the appellant is that because the

derivative transactions are carried through a recognized stock exchange, the loss of `38,65,615/- should not be treated as

speculation loss and must be considered as business loss eligible to

be adjusted against other heads of income. As against this contention

of the appellant, the AO mentioned in the assessment order that the

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 7

explanation to Section 73 will have precedence over Section 43(5)

because explanation to Section 73 comes after Section 43(5). The

Calcutta High Court in the case of Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., ITA

No.256 of 2002 held that in the case of companies, the explanation to

Section 73 which has been enacted for special purposes, overrides

the other provisions of the Act; however the meaning given by the AO

that Section 73 comes after Section 45, therefore it will have

precedence is not a acceptable preposition.

3.5 As per Section 43(5)(d) the derivative transaction carried

through a recognized stock exchange must not be classified as

speculative transaction and accordingly the assessee is correct in arriving at the business loss of `5,24,494/-. The assessee arrived at

business loss of `5,24,494/- after adjusting loss on trading of

derivatives of `38,65,615/- as against the income earned from

consultation business. The gross receipts from consultation business is `36,04,000/- against which administrative expenses of `2,59,629/-,

preliminary expenses of Rs.3,250/- and loss on sale of derivatives of `38,65,615/- were adjusted to arrive at the business loss of

`5,24,494/-.

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 8

3.6 As per the explanation to Section 73, even if the provision as it

existed at that time is applied, the assessee falls under the exception

clause because the income predominantly consists of income from

capital gain and not income from business. The Bombay High Court

in the case of Darshan Securities Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.2886 of 2009

dated 02.02.20 12 held that:

“In order to determine whether the exception that is carved out by the explanation applies, the legislature has first mandated a computation of the gross total income of the Company. The words “consists mainly” are indicative of the fact that the legislature had in its contemplation that the gross total income consists predominantly of income from the four heads that are referred to therein. Obviously, in computing the gross total income the normal provisions of the Act must be applied and it is only thereafter, that it has to be determined as to whether the gross total income so computed consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads referred to in the explanation. 9. Consequently, in the present case the gross total income of the assessee was required to be computed inter alia by computing the income under the head of profits and gains of business or profession as well. Both the income from service charges in the amount of Rs.2.25 crores and the loss in share trading of Rs.2.23 crores, would have to be taken into account in computing the income under the head, both being sources under the same head. The assessee had a dividend income of Rs.4. 7 lacs (income from other sources). The Tribunal was justified, in coming to the conclusion that the assessee fell within the purview of the exception carved out in the explanation to

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 9

Section 73 and that consequently the assessee would not be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business for the purpose of Section 73(1).”

3.7 The above judgement was also followed by the Hon’ble

Calcutta High Court in the case of Middleton Investment & Trading

Co. Ltd.; ITA No.196 of 1999 dated 15.01.2014.

3.8 According to Ld.CIT(A), in the present case, the income from

capital loss arrived by the assessee is `15,62,126/- and the loss from

business is `5,24,494/-. The Calcutta High Court in the case of

Eastern Aviation and Industries, 208 ITR 1023 held that profits and

gains represent positive income whereas the losses represent

negative income. Since in the case of the appellant, the negative

income earned from capital gains is more than the negative income

earned from business, the predominant part of income earned is from

capital gains. Therefore the exception carved out in explanation to

Section 73 of the Act is applicable. Accordingly, the purchase and

sale of shares of other companies will not be treated as speculation

business even as per the provisions of explanation to Section 73 of

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 10

the Act. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by ld.

Assessing Officer. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the Revenue

is in appeal before us.

record. In the present case, the assessee is engaged in the

business of share trading and I.T. enables services. In this course of

activities, the assessee earned the loss from short term capital gains

of (-) 15,62,126/- and the business loss of (-) 5,24,494/-. While

computing the business loss, the assessee included the loss on sale of securities at `38,65,615/-. The ld. Assessing Officer had taken out

it from P&L A/c and considered it as speculative loss. Now the

contention of the ld.A.R is that negative income earned from capital

gains is more than the negative income from business, the main part

of the income is earned from the capital gains. According to ld.A.R,

the exception provided in Sec.73 r.w.s.43(5)(d) has to be applied.

To answer to this question, I have to go through the P&L A/c

prepared by the assessee as on 31.03.2008 which reads as follows:-

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 11

SCH No. CURR.YR I. INCOME Sales -- 0.00 Consultation fees received 36,04,000.00 II. EXPNENDITURE Administrative expenses (F) 2,59,629.15 Loss on sale of investments 0.00 Loss on sale of securities 38,65,614.81 Short term capital loss 15,62,125.70 Preliminary expenses written (E) 3,250.00 off 56,90,619.66 Loss Before Tax LESS: provision for tax for 622.00 622.00 FBT Loss After Tax 20,87,241.66 Balance C/F to P&L A/c from 24,37,282.36 Previous years 45,24,524.02

As seen from the computation of income filed by the assessee along

with the return of income, assessee declared the business income as

loss at ` 5,24,493/- before adjusting the loss at sale of securities of

`38,65,614.81. In my opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) has to arrive the

business income of the assessee by excluding this amount, then he

has to decide the main business of the assessee so as to decide

whether the assessee has earned income from capital gains more

than the income from business so as to apply the explanation in

Sec.73 of the Act. Without carrying on this exercise, Ld.CIT(A)

directly observe that the negative income earned from the capital

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 12

gains is more the negative income earned from the business, which forms the predominant part of the income earned by the assessee.

On exclusion of this impugned amount of 38,65,614.81 being loss on sale of securities, the business income of assessee would be `33,41,120.85 ( rounded off `33,41,121). Being so, business income

of assessee is more than other income. Hence, there is no application of exemption provided in Sec.73 r.w.s. 43(5)(d) of the Act.

Accordingly, the order of Ld.CIT(A) is reversed and the order of ld. Assessing Officer is restored. Therefore, the grounds raised in appeal of Revenue stands allowed.

Chennai, Dated the 05th December, 2017. K s sundaram. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु�त/CIT 6. गाड� फाईल/GF

ITA No. 2124/Mds/2017 13