2025 (5) TMI 888 - AT - Income Tax

Short-term capital loss (on which STT was paid) set off against short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid) - HELD YTHAT - As per the provisions of section 70(2) of the Act the short-term capital loss can be set off against gain from any other capital asset. Section 70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the transactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not paid. The emphasis of the AO on the term similar computation also only refers to the computation as provided under sections 48 to 55 of the Act. We find that while deciding a similar issue in iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC 2024 (6) TMI 148 - ITAT MUMBAI following the decision of Rungamatee Trexim (P.) Ltd. 2008 (12) TMI 759 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT allowed the set off of short-term capital loss (on which STT was paid) against the short-term capital gains (on which STT was not paid). We find that the AO while making the impugned additions added the short-term capital gains which were already considered by the assessee while computing its total income amounting to Rs. 1309, 50, 27, 488/-. Accordingly the AO is directed to correctly compute the income of the assessee and levy the tax as per law. As a result grounds no.1 to 4 raised in assessee s appeal are allowed.

Summary

The primary legal issue considered is whether short-term capital losses incurred on equity transactions subject to Securities Transaction Tax (STT) can be set off against short-term capital gains arising from the sale of right forms not subject to STT, given the differing tax rates applicable (15% for STT transactions and 30% for non-STT transactions). Additional issues include the correctness of the amount of brought forward losses allowed as set-off, the accuracy of total income computation by the Assessing Officer (AO), the erroneous classification and taxation of capital gains as income from other sources, the consequential tax and interest computations, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act").

Regarding the core issue of set-off of losses, the relevant legal framework centers on section 70(2) of the Act, which permits the set-off of short-term capital losses against income from any other capital asset computed under sections 48 to 55. The Court emphasized that section 70(2) does not differentiate between capital gains or losses arising from transactions subject to STT and those not subject to STT. The term "similar computation" in section 70(2) refers to the method of computing capital gains under sections 48 to 55, which does not prescribe tax rates or impose hierarchical restrictions on set-off.

The Court analyzed precedents, notably a coordinate bench decision in iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD ACC vs. DCIT, which allowed the set-off of short-term capital losses on STT-paid transactions against short-term capital gains not subject to STT. The decision relied on the Calcutta High Court ruling in CIT vs. Rungamatee Trexim (P.) Ltd., which held that the Act does not mandate a sequential set-off of losses and gains based on STT applicability. The Court noted that the computation mechanism for capital gains under sections 48 to 55 is uniform regardless of STT status and that tax rates under sections 111A and 115AD are separate from the computation of gains or losses.

The Court also referenced additional coordinate bench decisions supporting the taxpayer's position, including Emerging Markets Index Non-Lendable Fund vs. DCIT, Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund vs. ACIT, JS Capital LLC vs. ACIT, and Dy.DIT vs. M/s. DWS India Equity Fund. These decisions consistently upheld the principle that short-term capital losses subject to STT can be set off against short-term capital gains not subject to STT without restriction.

Applying the law to the facts, the Court found that the assessee's method of first setting off brought forward short-term capital losses (on STT-paid equity transactions) against short-term capital gains from the sale of right forms (not subject to STT) and then against short-term capital gains from STT-paid equity transactions was lawful and consistent with section 70(2). The AO's contrary approach, which disallowed such set-off and taxed the entire short-term capital gains from right forms at 30%, was held to be erroneous. The Court observed that the AO's addition of short-term capital gains already included in the return of income resulted in duplication and inflated total income computation.

Regarding the issue of the lower amount of brought forward losses allowed as set-off, the Court found no justification for the AO's disallowance of part of the losses claimed by the assessee. The Court directed the AO to allow the full set-off of brought forward losses as claimed, consistent with the legal provisions and precedents.

On the computation of total income, the Court noted discrepancies between the AO's assessment order and the computation sheet, including the erroneous classification of short-term capital gains as income from other sources and the consequent application of an incorrect tax rate of 40% plus surcharge and cess. The Court held that such classification was incorrect, as the gains were rightly classified as capital gains in the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) and in the return of income. The Court directed the AO to recompute the total income correctly, eliminating the duplication and misclassification.

Concerning the tax computation and interest levy, the Court found the AO's calculation of tax on the erroneous addition of Rs. 1,75,26,00,095/- at the base rate of 40% plus surcharge and cess unjustified. The Court also observed that the AO's levy of interest under section 234B and the total interest and fees payable lacked proper bifurcation and explanation. The Court directed the AO to recompute the tax liability and interest as per the correct income computation.

Regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for alleged under-reporting of income, the Court held that such proceedings were premature and dismissed the penalty ground.

The Court's significant holdings include the following verbatim legal reasoning:

"Section 70(2) of the Act does not make any further classification between the transactions where STT was paid and the transactions where STT was not paid. The emphasis of the AO on the term 'similar computation' also only refers to the computation as provided under sections 48 to 55 of the Act."

"It is clear that section 48 to section 55 does not provide for rate of tax on capital gain. It specifically lays down the computation mechanism of capital gain and certainly not tax on such capital gains."

"Therefore, we do not find any reason to deprive the assessee from setoff of short-term capital losses suffered by the assessee for the same year against the short-term capital gains earned by the assessee. Such claim is in accordance with the provisions of section 70 (2) of the Act."

"The honourable Calcutta High Court in Rungamatee Trexim ITA number 812 of 2008 dated 19 December 2008 held that there is no provision nor the act compels the assessee to first set off short-term capital gain which STT against short-term capital loss with STT and then allows set off against short-term capital gain without STT."

In conclusion, the Court determined that the assessee's approach to set-off of brought forward short-term capital losses against short-term capital gains irrespective of STT applicability was legally permissible and consistent with the Income Tax Act and judicial precedents. The AO's contrary approach was set aside, directing recomputation of income and tax liability accordingly. The penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature. The appeal was partly allowed on these grounds.