The Mumbai bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, (“Tribunal”) in a ruling’ in the case of Citicorp Banking Corporation, Baharain Vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax (I.T.)-Range 1-[2011-T11-40-1TAT-MUM-INTL], held that losses arising on cancellation of foreign exchange forward contracts entered into by the assessee for protecting it against the risk of currency fluctuation would be characterized as capital loss and the said loss can be set-off against other capital gains under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Further, the Tribunal also held that section 115AD provides for tax rates on income from securities or capital gains and it has nothing to do with determination of the nature of gain or loss i.e. capital or revenue.
Facts
The assessee is a branch of Citicorp Banking Corporation and a tax resident of the USA. It is registered as an FII with the Securities and Exchange Board of India, carrying out investment activities in India. The assessee earned long-term capital gains from the sale of shares and declared a net long-term capital gain of INR 804 million after set-off of loss arising on cancellation of foreign exchange forward contract. The assessee offered the net long-term capital gains for taxation at the rate of 10 per cent under section 115AD of the Act.
Section 115AD of the Act provides that in the case of an FII, short-term or long-term capital gains would be taxed at the rate of ten percent.
The tax officer held that the loss that arose from cancellation of the foreign exchange forward contract could not be considered for taxation under section ii5AD and declined to allow the set-off against long-term capital gain claimed by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the tax officer; accordingly, the assessee approached the Tribunal.
Assessee’s contentions
• As per Exchange Control regulations, FIIs are allowed to hedge original capital investment into India. The foreign exchange forward contract is restricted to the extent of the investment made by the FII. The value of the foreign exchange forward contract does not constitute stock-in-trade, stores or raw materials in the context of business but is linked with investments, and hence, is a capital asset and not a trading asset.
• The foreign exchange forward contract was entered into by the assessee to protect it against the risk of depreciation in the value of currency in which capital asset was held and whenever there was a sale of shares, foreign exchange realized on sale proceeds would be utilized for making remittances. Accordingly, since the assessee, as a foreign investor, was holding shares on capital account, these shares were held to be capital assets, and accordingly, the gains/losses on the foreign exchange forward contract would be characterized as capital in nature.
• The assessee relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Tata Electric & Locomotive Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 405 (SC), and CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 328 (SC) which dealt with characterization of the nature of gain/loss into capital or revenue depending upon the gains or losses arising on devaluation of currency held on revenue or capital account.
Revenue’s contentions
