AIT-2011-263-ITAT
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH “A” AHMEDABAD
Before S/Shri M.K. Shrawat, JM and D.C.Agrawal, AM
ITA No.
1. 2264/Ahd/2007
2. 245/Ahd/2009
3. 246/Ahd/2009
4. 247/Ahd/2009
5. 2773/Ahd/2008
C.O.No.
24/Ahd/2009
25/Ahd/2009
26/Ahd/2009
222/Ahd/200 8
Income-tax Officer, Ward 10(2),
Ahmedabad.
(Appellant)
Vs.
Asst. Year
2003-04
2001-02
2004-05
2005-06
2002-03
Gujarat Information Technology
Fund, 1st floor, Premchand House,
Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.
(Respondent)
Revenue by :- Shri D. C. Patwari, CIT, DR & Shri S. A.
Assessee by:- Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri P. M. Mehta, AR
Bohra,
Sr.DR
AIT Head Note: the investment in F.D. does not violate any of the provisions either
under SEBI guidelines or of the trust-deed. In fact there is no express prohibition of
investment in FD as per regulation 12(d). Therefore, as per above discussion, we hold
that ld. CIT(A) was justified in granting exemption u/s 10(23FB) on interest income of
Rs.75.56 lacs earned from bank deposits.(Para 36)
O R D E R
Per D.C. Agrawal, Accountant Member.
Since all these appeals and Cross Objections pertained to the same assessee and they
involve common issue, they are taken up together for the sake of convenience. The lead year
for the discussion is Asst. Year 2003-04. In this year the Revenue has raised following
ground:(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in granting exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the IT
Act, to the assessee on income earned from Bank Deposit of Rs.75.56 lacs by the
assessee.
2. Thus the only issue involved in the appeal is whether the assessee is entitled to
exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect
of interest income of Rs.75.56 lacs earned from Bank Deposits.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 1
3. The facts relating to the issue are that the assessee, Gujarat Information Technology
Fund (a venture capital fund) is constituted under a trust deed executed by Gujarat
Venture Finance Ltd. on 21.3.2000 with initial corpus of Rs.5 lacs. The main object of the
fund was to obtain capital growth by making investments in the concerns engaged in
information technology sector or related business. During the year under consideration
total receipts was shown at Rs.85,87,919/- with break up as under :Nature of Income
(i) Income from Venture Assistance
(ii) Other Income
Amount
10,31,478/75,56,551/-
The assessee claimed exemption in respect of entire income u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. The
AO examined the past as well as subsequent return of income and found that income earning
activities of the firm vis-à-vis object of the firm were as under :Sl.
No.
Asst. Year
R.R.No.
Dt.of filing
1
2
3
4
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
6646
6596
5080
2243
18/10/2002
23/10/2003
25/10/2004
11/08/2005
Income from
Venture
Capital
Assistance
(Rs.)
3,81,281/10,31,478/8,34,286/5,64,988/-
Income from
other
sources (Rs.)
76,49,395/75,56,441/49,97,348/60,46,638/-
The AO examined the claim of the assessee and opined that it does not fulfill
various conditions laid down in that section. While concluding the assessment the AO
gave following reasons for denying the claim to the assessee: “Conclusion:
11.1 In view of the foregoing discussion, it is noticed that the assessee fund
has violated the provision of the Income-tax Act, SEBI Regulations and the
Trust Deed itself. The violations are mentioned in a nut-shell below11.2 Violation of Income-tax Act, 1961:
The assessee has not fulfilled the criteria for venture capital fund as
enumerated in explanation (1)(b)(ii) and (1)(b)(iii) to section 1 0(23FB).
11.3 Violation of SEBI Regulations:
(i) The assessee has violated the regulation 12(b) of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Venture capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 (as it
stood prior to 15/09/2000).
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 2
(ii) The fund has also violated the regulation 12(d) of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 (as
amended by notification dated 1 5/09/2000).
(iii) The fund has violated the regulation 8 of Securities and Exchange Board
of India (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996.
(iv) the fund has also violated the regulation 2(m) of Securities and
Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996.
11.4 Violation of provisions of Trust Deed:
(i) The trust deed declaration in page 2(iv) states that “The funds shall not
be applied directly or indirectly for any purpose other than the purposes
specified herein. The assessee has made substantial investments in Bank
deposits which violates the provisions of trust deed.
(ii) The trust deed declaration in para 5(B)(i) of the lays down that “Gujarat
IT Fund will be deemed to have been fully invested when 80% of the corpus
of Gujarat IT Fund is invested in the Assisted Concerns including loans and
the balance in cash and/or highly liquid money market instruments. The
investment pattern violates the said provisions of the deed.
(iii) The trust deed declaration in para 5(A)(i) lays down the mode of
investments of the fund, which does not include investment in Bank deposits
to earn interest.
11.5 From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the assessee fund is not a
venture capital fund within the meaning of Section 10(23FB) of the Act, as it
violates the provisions of SEBI Regulations as well as the provisions of the Trust
deed. In view of the same, the receipts of the assessee need to be taxed as income
from other sources since, the income of the assessee comprises of (i) interest
income (ii) scrutiny fee (iii) royalty and miscellaneous income. All these income fall
under the head of Income from other sources. The income of the assessee is thus
taxed as income from other sources and the expenses are allowed as per the
provision of section 57 of Income-tax Act, 1961 as discussed below. Similar action is
being taken for preceding years as well as subsequent years since, the investment
pattern as well as the income earning pattern of the assessee violates the provisions
of the IT Act, SEBI Regulations and provisions of the Trust Deed.”
While explaining conclusion in para 11.2 the AO mentioned that the restriction granted u/s
7(3) of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996, the
venture capital fund is subject to the condition specified in the Act and the Regulations
made thereunder. The fund does not come within the meaning of Venture Capital Fund since
the fund failed to adhere to the conditions and Regulation mentioned in SEBI (Venture
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 3
Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996 and, therefore, violated explanation 1(b)(ii) and 1(b)(iii)
contained in section 10(23FB). In respect of conclusion drawn in para 11.3 the AO explained
in the assessment order that as per SEBI (Venture Capital Fund) Regulation, 1996, the
assessee fund is required to make investment in accordance with the Regulations laid down
therein as per Regulation No.12 :“12. (a) the venture capital fund shall not invest in the equity shares of any company
or institution providing financial services.
(b) at least 80% of funds raised by a venture capital fund shall be invested in
(i) the equity shares or equity related securities issued by a company whose
securities are not listed on any recognized stock exchange;
(ii) the equity shares or equity related securities of a financial weak company or a
sick industrial company, whose securities may or may not be listed on any recognized
stock exchange;
(iii) providing financial assistance any other manner to companies in whose equity
shares the venture capital fund has invested under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii)
as the case may be.”
However, investment during the year under specified security is less than the prescribed
limit as per regulation 12(b) wherein at least 80% receipts should be invested in specified
activities. Total fund raised during the year is 19.05 crores and, therefore, 80% thereof
which comes to Rs. 15.24 crores should have been invested in the specified activities.
However, the assessee has invested only Rs. 10.54 crores which falls substantially short of
minimum stipulated investment.
4. In respect of conclusion drawn in para 11.3 (ii) the AO mentioned that not making
investment in the specified activities to the extent required is a violation of regulation 12(a)
of the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996. As per that regulation investment is
required to be made as under :(i) at least [66.67%] of the investible funds shall be invested in unlisted equity
shares or equity linked instruments [of venture capital undertaking].
(ii) Not more than [33.33%] of the investible funds may be invested by way of
(a) subscription to initial public offer of a venture capital undertaking whose shares
are proposed to be listed
(b) debt or debt instrument of a venture capital undertaking in which the venture
capital fund has already made an investment by way of equity.]
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 4
(c) Preferential allotment of equity shares of a listed company subject to lock in
period of one year
(d) the equity shares or equity linked instruments of a financially weak company or a
sick industrial company whose shares are listed.
According to above, the assessee should have invested Rs.12.7 crores in Venture Finance
Assistance whereas it has invested only Rs. 10.54 crores.
5. In respect of conclusion drawn at para 11.3(iii) that there is a violation of regulation 8 of
SEBI (VCF) Regulation, 1996 the AO explained that the regulation -8 requires to fulfill
following conditions :(a) The venture capital fund shall abide by the provisions of the Act, and these regulations;
(b) The venture capital fund shall not carry on any other activity other than that of a
venture capital fund;
(c) The venture capital fund shall forthwith inform the Board in writing if any information
or particulars previously submitted to the Board are found to be false or misleading in any
material particular or if there is any change in the information already submitted.
However, the assessee has shown following investment pattern :Sl.
No
.
1
2
3
4
Asst
.
Year
0203
0304
0405
0506
Investment in
Venture
Capital
Assistance
8,95,93,450/-
%
of
invest
ment
out
of
funds
raised
49%
Income
from
venture
capital
assistance
(Rs.)
Investment
in
bank deposits
%
of
investm
3,81,281/-
9,18,53,488/-
ent out
of
funds
raised
51%
8,90,96,815/-
45%
8,38,01,808/-
45%
12,36,51,599/
-
53%
10,45,49,049/
10,47,10,049/-
55%
55%
10,31,478/
8,34,286/-
11,08,43,383/-
47%
5,64,988/-
Income
from other
sources
(Rs.)
76,49,395/
75,56,441/49,97,348/
60,46,638/
-
Thus the assessee has mainly income from other sources for last many years. It is a
violation of regulation 8(b) which clearly states that Venture Capital Fund cannot carry out
other activities. Making F.D. in bank and earning interest therefrom does not constitute the
activities of a Venture Capital Fund.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 5
6. While explaining conclusion 11.3(iv) the AO mentioned that definition of Venture Capital
Fund as given in regulation 2(m) is as under:2(m) venture capital fund’ means a fund established in the form of a trust or a
company including a body corporate and registered under these regulations which –
(i) has a dedicated pool of capital,
(ii) raised in a manner specified in the regulations, and
(iii) invests in accordance with the regulations
Since investment made by the assessee firm is not in accordance with the regulation it will
not come within the meaning of Venture Capital Fund.
7. While explanation violation of provision of trust deed the AO mentioned that –
(1) It has violated the basic purpose of the trust deed particularly para 2.4 thereof which
states that the fund shall not invest directly or indirectly, for any other purposes other
than the purpose specified therein. Para 5(B)(i) provides investment of 80% of the corpus in
the assisted concern including loans and balance in cash and/or highly liquid money market
instruments. Thus the assessee was required to invest only in information related concern
and not as bank deposits. He also observed that income earned as interest from bank
deposits would be taxable as income from other sources and not income of venture capital
fund which would get exemption u/s 10(23FB). In nutshell the AO rejected the claim and
exemption u/s 10(23FB) mainly on three counts –
(i) investment pattern of the assessee firm does not conform to the requirement of
SEBI Regulation and trust deed.
(ii) there is a violation of SEBI Regulation and the provisions of the trust deed.
(iii) Income from bank deposits is taxable as ‘income from other sources’ and is not
an income from assisted concern and hence should not get exemption u/s 10(23FB).
8. The ld. CIT(A) in a detailed and reasoned order allowed the claim of the assessee. His
findings in this regard are as under :“24. After having carefully considered the arguments of both the sides, I find force
in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. The explanation (1)(b) to section
10(23FB) defines the Venture Capital Fund. The conditions stipulated by this
provision are that the fund should be registered under the Registration Act, 1908,
it should have been granted a certificate of registration under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and Regulations made there-under and it should
fulfill the conditions as may be specified by SEBI with the approval of the Central
Govt. by Notification in official gazette. I am inclined to agree with the arguments
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 6
of the counsel for the appellant. As per the definition of the Venture Capital Fund,
it is nowhere stipulated that the provisions of SEBI Regulations, 1996 have to be
complied with. What the appellant has to comply with are the conditions which are
to be specified by SEBI with the approval of Central Govt. by Notification in official
gazette. No such conditions have been specified by the SEBI and hence, there is no
violation of the same by the appellant. The other two conditions viz. registration
under the Registration Act and obtaining a certificate of registration from SEBI
has been fulfilled by the appellant. All the three conditions specified by the
explanation 1(b) have been fulfilled by the appellant and therefore, the appellant
qualifies for exemption u/s 23(FB). The AO is not justified in saying that since the
appellant has to obtain a certificate from SEBI under the SEBI Act and the
Regulation made there-under, the appellant is required to fulfill the SEBI
Regulations 1996. This is nowhere provided in section 10(23FB). I further agree with
the arguments of the appellant that the investment pattern mentioned in the SEBI
Regulations has not specified the life cycle. It is only in 2004 that an explanation
has been inserted below the Regulation 12(d) which mentions that investment
condition shall be achieved by the fund by the end of life cycle. The life cycle of the
appellant is 10 years from the date of establishment and the same has not been
completed as yet since the appellant has been created vide trust deed dated 2
1/03/2000. The AO is not right in saying that the investment conditions stipulated
in Regulation 12(b) and 12(d) should be achieved at all points of time. The counsel for
the appellant is right in saying that the parking of funds in the bank deposits cannot
be called investment of funds and hence SEBI Regulations have not been violated.
Thus I agree with the counsel for the appellant that the provisions of SEBI
Regulations 1996 have not been violated by the appellant. In view of the arguments
of the counsel for the appellant, it is held that the appellant has fulfilled the
conditions prescribed in section 10(23FB) for claiming exemption and has moreover
has not violated the provisions of SEBI Regulations, 1996. The AO is directed to
allow the exemption to the appellant u/s 10(23FB). The ground No.2 of the appellant
is allowed.”
The gist of the reasoning given by ld. CIT(A) is that –
(1) For getting exemption u/s 10(23FB) it is nowhere stipulated in that section that
provisions of SEBI Regulations have to be complied with;
(2) Assessee has obtained registration of the trust deed under the Registration Act
and Certificate of Registration from SEBI.
(3) SEBI have not specified life cycle of the investment. The explanation inserted in
2004 provides the fulfilling the investment pattern by the end of life cycle of the
fund which is 10 years.
(4) Parking of fund in bank deposits is not a violation of SEBI Regulation.
9. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that -
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 7
(1) Object of the trust for which it was created was not fulfilled. Its investment
pattern is in contravention of the Regulation.
(2) For examining whether assessee is a venture capital fund as per section
10(23FB) one has necessarily to look as to whether assessee fits into the conditions
laid down in that section. For this purpose AO has liberty to look into whether
regulations of SEBI are followed by the assessee or not. Similarly he has liberty to
see whether there is a violation of provisions of trust deed.
(3) Exemption of income has to be examined each year and AO is duty bound to
examine the investment pattern of the venture capital fund every year
independently and see whether there is a violation of provisions of the trust deed or
SEBI regulations.
(4) In fact assessee has for own purpose mentioned that investible fund is only 80%
of the corpus. In fact for running administration and management only small fund is
required and, therefore, 80% of the corpus should be invested in specified
activities and when counted from this point, assessee’s investment falls short of the
requirement. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of AO and submitted that
order of ld. CIT(A) is cryptic and does not deal with the argument of ld. AO.
10. Against this, the ld, AR for the assessee submitted that the AO has mis-understood the
entire scheme of capital venture fund. In fact the capital venture fund is a via media to
allow various investors to come together to invest their funds in specified industries such as
information technology in the present case and thereafter share income earned by such
venture capital fund which will be taxable in their hand by virtue of section 15U(1). He
referred to that section as under :“115U. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act,
any income received by a person out of investments made in a venture capital
company or venture capital fund shall be chargeable to income-tax in the same
manner as if it were the income received by such person had he made investments
directly in the venture capital undertaking.”
In order to prevent the double taxation of same income once in the hand of venture capital
fund and other in the hands of individual investor section 10(23FB) has been enacted
providing exemption to its income. In fact according to the ld. AR similar provisions existed
prior to 1.4.2001 in the form of section 10(23FA) which provided exemption to dividend and
long term capital gains earned by a venture capital fund from investment made by way of
equity shares in venture capital undertaking i.e. assisted concerns. In order to enlarge the
scope of income to be earned by venture capital fund or venture capital company section
10(23FB) has been enacted by Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 1.4.2001. For the sake of
convenience he referred to that section as under :-
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 8
10(23FB) any income of a venture capital company or venture capital [from
investment] in a venture capital undertaking.
Explanation[1].—For the purposes of this clause,—
(a) “venture capital company” means such company—
(i) which has been granted a certificate of registration under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India 1992 (15 of 1992), and regulations made there-under
(ii) which fulfils the conditions as may be specified, with the approval of the Central
Government, by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, by notification in
Official Gazette, in this behalf;
(b) “venture capital fund” means such fund—
[(i) operating under a trust deed registered under provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908; operating as a venture capital scheme made by the I Trust of
India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963);]
(ii) which has been granted a certificate of registry under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India 1992 (15 of 1992), and regulations made there-under;
(iii) which fulfils the conditions as may be specified, with the approval of the Central
Government, by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, by notification in
Official Gazette, in this behalf; and
(c) “venture capital undertaking” means such domestic company whose shares are not
listed in a recognized stock exchange in India and which is engaged in the—
(i) business of –
(A) nanotechnology;
(B) information technology relating to hardware and softward development;
(C) seed research and development;
(D) bio-technology;
(E) research and development of new chemical entities in the pharmaceutical sector;
(F) production of bio-fuel;
(G) building and operating composite hotel-cum-convention centre with seating
capacity of more than three thousand; or
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 9
(H) developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining
any infrastructure facility as defined in the Explanation to clause (i) of sub-section
(4) of section 80-IA; or
(ii) dairy or poultry industry]
The ld. AR then pointed out that upto 3 1.3.2008 the words “set up to raise fund for
investment” existed in place of words “from investment” which was inserted by the Finance
Fact, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2008. It would mean that any income earned by venture capital
company or venture capital fund would be exempt upto 31.3.2008. This exemption aspect has
been curtailed w.e.f. 1.4.2008 by inserting the words “from investment” in place of words
“set up to raise fund for investment”. Thus w.e.f. Asst. Year 2008-09 only the income
earned from investing in venture capital undertakings would be exempt and income from
investment elsewhere would be taxable. In other words, if assessee venture capital fund has
two sources of income, one investment in venture capital undertakings, and other, say
deposit in the bank, then it is only the income from investment in venture capital
undertaking would be exempt and income from interest from bank deposit would be taxable
u/s 56. Such distinction did not exist upto 31.3.2008. Therefore, upto Asst. Year 2007-08
any income earned by venture capital fund would be exempt u/s 10(23FB).
11. The ld. AR then submitted that it is incorrect to hold that assessee is not a venture
capital fund. The assessee is a trust, which came into existence through a trust deed
registered under the provisions of Registration Act. It has been granted certificate of
registration by SEBI. It fulfills all the conditions laid down by SEBI. The SEBI has given a
certificate to this effect. Assessing authority is not empowered to look into whether there
is any violation of regulation of SEBI or violation of provisions of trust deed. Once assessee
has been given certificate by SEBI and trust is registered under Registration Act then
requirement of explanation-1(b) of section 10(23FB) is fulfilled. If AO finds any violation
then he has to report to the SEBI which can take necessary action against the assessee by
canceling the registration.
12. The ld. AR also submitted that it is incorrect on the part of AO to hold that investment
pattern is not in accordance with trust deed or SEBI regulation. He submitted that trust
deed permits only 80% of the corpus of the investible funds and rest is allowed to be
preserved for administration and management of the fund. Out of the investible fund which
is 80% of the corpus assessee is required to invest only 66.67% in assisted concern and rest
in specified securities. By this calculation the investment in assisted concern should be only
Rs. 10.16 crores whereas assessee has made investment of Rs. 10.54 crores. He submitted
that sanctioned fund for assisted concern is 14.54 crores which is about 90% of the
investible fund which is calculated at Rs. 15,24 crores which is 80% of the corpus fund of
Rs. 19.05crores. It is incorrect on the part of the AO to hold that entire corpus fund is
investible fund.
13. The ld. AR then submitted as per amendment made in section 12(d) of SEBI (VCF)
Regulation 1996, an explanation has been inserted though w.e.f. 5.4.2004 according to which
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 10
investment patter as per clause (d) of regulation 12 should be achieved by the venture
capital fund by the end of life cycle which is 10 years in the present case. Therefore, the
condition of investment in assisted concern by 66.67% of investible fund should be achieved
at the end of life cycle of the Venture Capital Fund and not every year. Even though the ld.
AR submitted this explanation has been inserted w.e.f. 5.4.2004 but this date is incidental
in nature and, therefore explanation would be applicable to all existing venture capital
funds. Notwithstanding, assessee venture fund has achieved the investment pattern in the
year itself. The ld. AR then submitted that even though there is no violation of any
regulation by investment in Fixed Deposit but still trust deed provided for investment of
temporary surplus into bank deposits. He referred to clause 5(B)(iv) of the trust deed.
Once investment is according to the trust deed which is registered by the Commissioner of
charities under Registration Act then it cannot be alleged that there is a violation of trust
deed or SEBI regulation.
14. The ld. AR then referred to section 2 (hh) of SEBI (VCF) Regulation 1996 which
provides that investible funds means corpus of the fund, net of expenditure for
administration and management of the fund. Therefore, assessee fund has followed the
regulation in defining what should be the investible fund. Once trust has defined investible
fund as 80% of the corpus fund then assessee fund has only followed the trust deed in this
regard. Thus there is no violation of any provisions of the trust deed.
15. The ld. AR submitted that assessee fund has been filing annual return with the SEBI and
no fault has been found therein. It has been clearly returning to the SEBI the pattern of
investment every year.16. The ld. AR referred to the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in
CIT vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-E-alam Roza Estate Trust (2002) 256 ITR 193 (Guj) and that of
Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 117 ITR 1
(SC) for the proposition that if trust deed is found in order by the Commissioner of
Charities then the AO has to abide by it.
17. The ld. AR advancing the discussion on the subject referred to the decision of Hon.
Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hazarat Pir Shah-E-alam Roza Estate Trust
(supra) for the proposition that entries in the register of public trust showing that the
trust is registered as a public trust and properties are registered in the name of the trust
would be relevant material before an authority or a court to decide as to whether the public
trust existed and as to whether the properties shown in its name are really the properties
of the public trust. The enquiry to be carried out by the AO in this regard is an enquiry for
adjudicating upon the title of the property but only limited to enquiry for ascertaining
whether exemption claimed u/s 11 is warranted. The scope of the enquiry under the IT Act
is wholly different from the scope of enquiry under the Bombay Public Trust 1915. The ld.
AR also submitted that a similar view was taken in the case of Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd.
vs. CIT (supra).
18. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record. The
main question to be decided is whether the assessee is entitled to exemption to its interest
income earned from deposits in bank and also to other income u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. In
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 11
order to address this question several intermediate issues arise for discussion. Each of
these issues is discussed as under :(1) What is Venture Capital Fund:
During the course of discussion with the parties it is gathered that venture capital
is finance capital provided by different investors to early stage, high potential, high
risk, growth start up companies. The venture capital fund makes money by investing
in equities in such high risk growth, start up companies which use new technology or
new business model such as bio-technology, IT software etc. Since it may not be
possible for an individual investors to take risk in investing its funds in such a high
risk but high potential new technology companies, several of such investors come
together pool their money, lock in for certain number of years say 8 to 10 years,
identify such high risks, high potential new technology companies and invest in their
equity and make money. They also provide to such new start up companies their
managerial and technical expertise, in addition to capital. The profit earned in such
growing companies is shared by investors which gives them adequate return on their
investment. A venture capital fund is also referred as pooled investment vehicle.
(2) Venture capital fund as per I.T. Act.
Section 10(23F) which was inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 w.e.f. 1.4.1996 first
provided the definition of ‘venture capital fund’, in clause (a) to explanation therein
as under :Explanation.–For the purposes of this clause,–
(a) “venture capital fund” means such fund, operating under a trust deed registered
under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), establishing to
raise monies by the trustees for investments mainly by way of acquiring equity
shares of a venture capital undertaking in accordance with the prescribed guidelines
The basic ingredients of a Venture Capital Fund (V.C.F.) as per this definition are (i) It
should operate under a trust deed (ii) The trustees can raise money for investment (iii)
Such investment should be mainly in acquiring equity shares of venture capital undertakings.
This provision remained in force till 1999-2000. By Finance Act, 1999, w.e.f. 1.4.2000, the
operation of this clause came to an end. In its place section 10(23FA) was inserted which
provided practically the same definition of VCF but the definition of venture capital
undertaking, in which venture capital fund was required to make investment by acquiring
equity shares, was amended and enlarged. Earlier in section 10(23F) the definition of
venture capital undertaking whose equity shares was to be acquired by venture capital fund
were confined to limited industries such as business of generation and distribution of
electricity or any other firm of power or engaged in the business of tele-communication
services or engaged in the business of other communication services, or developing,
maintaining or operating infrastructure facilities, or engaged in the manufacture or
production of specified articles or things. In section 10(23FA) definition of venture capital
undertaking in whose equity shares venture capital fund would invest was enlarged. It
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 12
included particularly those undertakings which are engaged in the business of software,
information technology, production of basic drugs in the pharmaceutical sector, biotechnology, agricultural and allied sector or any other sector specified by Central
Government. However, the new provision of section 10(23FA) remained operative only for
one year and was substituted by new section 10(23FB) where definition of venture capital
fund was made more specific. This definition effective from 1.4.2001 was as under :(b) ‘‘venture capital fund’’ means such fund—
(i) operating under a trust deed registered under the provisions of the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) ;
(ii) which has been granted a certificate of registration under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), and regulations made there-under ;
(iii) which fulfils the conditions as may be specified, with the approval of the Central
Government, by the Securities and Exchange Board of India, by notification in the
Official Gazette, in this behalf ;
The definition of venture capital undertaking was also enlarged in section 10(23FB) thereby
inserting more industries, where venture capital fund can make investment in equity shares.
Income earned therefrom would be exempt u/s 10(23FB).
19. Hon. Finance Minister while inserting new provisions of 10(23FB) stated in the Lok Sabha
on May 2000 while moving Finance Bill 2001 for consideration the house as under:“Venture Capital Fund shall enjoy a complete pass through status. There will be no
tax on distributed or undistributed income of such funds. The income distributed by
the funds will only be taxed in the hands of investors at the rates applicable to the
nature of income”.
20. Thereafter Finance Act, 2007 prospectively amended the provision of section 10(23FB)
w.e.f. 1.4.2008 thereby inserting in place of the words “set up to raise fund for investment”,
the words “from investment” in section 10(23FB). Thus earlier section 10(23FB) read as
under :10(23FB) any income of a venture capital company or venture capital fund set up to
raise funds for investment in a venture capital undertaking.
This change was explained in the Memorandum explaining the amendments as under :10(23FB) any income of a venture capital company or venture capital fund set up to
raise funds for investment in a venture capital undertaking.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 13
“Under the existing provisions of clause 23(FB) of section 10, any income of a
venture capital company or venture capital fund set up to raise funds for investment
in a venture capital undertaking is exempt from tax…..
It is proposed to amend the said clause so as to provide that such exemption will
now be available only in respect of income of a venture capital company or venture
capital fund from investment in a venture capital undertaking engaged in specified
business or industries
This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2008, and accordingly apply in
relation for the assessment year 2008-09 and subsequent years.”
It means that income of VCF would be fully exempt upto Asst. Year 2007-08 and would be
partly exempt since Asst. Year 2008-09 to the extent of income earned from investment in
venture capital undertakings only. Other income would be taxable. The effect of this change
will be discussed in the following paragraphs also.
21. In the present Asst. Year i.e. Asst. Year 2003-04 or other Asst. Years upto 2005-06
involved in the appeals before us, the definition of venture capital fund required following
conditions to be satisfied:(1) The venture capital fund is a trust which is registered under the provisions of
Registration Act, 1908.
(2) It has been granted a certificate of registration under the Securities and
Exchange Board of India Act (15 of 1992) and Regulation made therein. 1992.
(3) It would mean the conditions as specified by Securities and Exchange Board of
India after the approval of the Central Government and by notification in the
Official Gazette, where a fund which should be a trust specifies the three
conditions it would be a venture capital fund within the meaning of section 10(23FB)
In other words for the purpose of claiming exemption to its income either fully (prior to
Asst. Year 2008-09) or partly thereafter (Asst. Year 2008- 09) the venture capital fund
should satisfy these three conditions. If they satisfy their income would be exempt
accordingly.
(3) Venture Capital Fund Under SEBI RULES:
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI in short) issued u/s 30 of SEBI Act, 1992
regulations called Securities and Exchange Board of India (venture capital fund) Regulation
1996 for regulating the formation and functioning of venture capital funds. Regulation 2(m)
thereof defines venture capital fund as under :“venture capital fund” means a fund established in the form of a trust or a company
including a body corporate and registered under these regulations which -
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 14
(i) has a dedicated pool of capital;
(ii) raised in a manner specified in the regulations; and
(iii) invests in accordance with the regulations;
The venture capital fund has to satisfy above definitions contained in Regulation 2(m) for
getting a certificate from SEBI as required u/s 10(23FB) (b)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. These
conditions are provided in regulation -8 of above rules. They are as under :Conditions of certificate
8. The certificate granted under regulation 7 shall be inter alia, subject to the
following conditions, namely:(a) the venture capital fund shall abide by the provisions of the Act and these
regulations;
(b) the venture capital fund shall not carry on any other activity other than that of
a venture capital fund;
(c) the venture capital fund shall forthwith inform the Board in writing if any
information or particulars previously submitted to the Board are found to be false
or misleading in any material particular or if there is any change in the information
already submitted.
The certificate is granted by SEBI as per regulation 7 which reads as under :7(1) If the Board is satisfied that the applicant is eligible for the grant of
certificate, it shall send an intimation to the applicant.
(2) The Board shall on receipt of the registration fee grant a certificate of
registration in Form –B.
It also provides in Regulation 10 that in case where the venture capital fund is not granted
certificate and its application is rejected then it shall not carry on any activity as a venture
capital fund.
22. There are other conditions of investment and restriction imposed as per regulation -12
which a venture capital is required to follow. These regulations are as under :Investment conditions and restrictions.
12. All investment made or to be made by a venture capital fund shall be subject to the
following conditions, namely :-
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 15
(a) venture capital fund shall disclose the investment strategy at the time of
application for registration;
(b) venture capital fund shall not invest more than 25% corpus of the fund in one
venture capital undertaking;
(c) shall not invest in the associated companies; and
(d) venture capital fund shall make investment as enumerated below:
(i) at least 66.67% of the investible funds shall be invested in unlisted equity shares
or equity linked instruments of venture capital undertaking;
(ii)not more than 33.33% of the investible funds may be invested by way of –
(a)subscription to initial public offer of a venture capital undertaken whose shares
are proposed to be listed
(b)debt or debt instrument of a venture capital undertaking in which the venure
capital fund has already made an investment by way of equity
(c)preferential allotment of equity shares of a listed company subject to lockinperiod of one year;
(d)the equity shares or equity linked instruments of a financially weak company or a
sick industrial company whose shares are listed.
Explanation-1 for the purpose of these regulations, a financially weak company”
means a company, which has at the end of the previous financial year accumulated
losses, which has resulted in erosion of more than 50% but less than 100% of its
networth as at the beginning of the previous financial year;
(e)Special purpose vehicles which are created by a venture capital fund for the
purpose of facilitating or promoting investment in accordance with these
Regulations;
Explanation-The investment conditions and restrictions stipulated in clause (d) of
regulation 12 shall be achieved by the venture capital fund by the end of its life
cycle;
(e) venture capital fund shall disclose the duration of life cycle of the fund.
In brief, if a VCF satisfies conditions for grant of certificate laid down u/s SEBI
(VCF) Regulation, 1996 and a certificate is so granted by SEBI on satisfaction of
such conditions then it will operate as a VCF. It would in turn also satisfy the
conditions laid down u/s 10(23FB) explanation 1(b)(ii).
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 16
(4) Whether assessee is a venture capital fund:
From the perusal of records submitted before us, particularly the orders of AO and
of the ld. CIT(A), we notice that assessee trust has been registered under the
provisions of Registration Act, 1908 on 7th April, 2000. The registration is
recorded at Sr.No. 1125 in the book No.4 with the Commissioner of Charities. This
trust deed was executed on 21st March, 2000 and submitted to the Registrar on
22nd March, 2000 and was accordingly registered by the Sub-registrar on 7th
April, 2000.
23. The assessee trust is also registered under SEBI as per Regulation 7(3) of Securities
and Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996 on June 26, 2000 as
per copy of certificate enclosed on page 87 of assessee’s paper book. Once this certificate
is issued to the assessee trust then it satisfies the conditions laid down in sub-clause (ii) of
clause (b) of Explanation-1 of section 10(23FB). Similarly it satisfies the conditions laid
down in sub-clause (i) of clause (b) under that explanation, as it is a trust registered as
discussed above. From this it follows that it satisfies the two conditions of clause (b) of
Explanation-1. On the other hand, clause (iii) requires the trust to fulfill the conditions as
may be specified by SEBI. When we go through the Regulations of 1996 under which the
assessee trust was granted certificate as per Regulation 7(3), we find two sets of
conditions. One set of conditions are given in Regulation No.8 and the other set of
conditions are given in Regulation No.12. Conditions given in regulation -8 are required to be
fulfilled by the assessee trust prior to getting certificate from SEBI. Once a certificate is
issued it follows that it is satisfying those conditions. Conditions laid down in regulation
no.12 are post certificate conditions required to be followed by the assessee trust during
the course of conducting its business. In case of violation of any of the conditions laid down
in these regulations, regulation No.30 provides procedure for action in case of default as
under:Procedure for action in case of default
Liability for action in case of detault.
30. Without prejudice to the issue of directions or measure under regulation 29, a
venture capital fund which –
(a) contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or these regulations;
(b) fails to furnish any information relating to its activity as a venture capital fund
as required by the Board;
(c) furnishes to the Board information which is false or misleading in any material
particular;
(d) does not submit periodic returns or reports as required by the Board;
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 17
(e) does not co-operate in any enquiry, inspection or investigation conducted by the
Board;
(f) fails to resolve the complaints of investors or fails to give a satisfactory reply to
the Board in this behalf
shall be dealt with in the manner provided in the Securities and Exchange Board of
India (Procedure for Holding Enquiry by Enquiry Officer and Imposing Penalty)
Regulations, 2002.
Thus so long as there is no default found by SEBI in any of the clauses of Regulation 30 it
can be said that it is fulfilling the conditions laid down in the SEBI (Venture Cepital Funds)
Regulations 1996. Neither the AO nor the ld. DR could point out any default noticed by
SEBI or action taken by SEBI for such default. Accordingly, there is no reason to hold that
assessee trust does not fulfill any condition laid down even in Regulation No.12 of SEBI
(Venture Capital Funds) Regulations 1996. In view of above, we hold that assessee is a
venture capital fund within the meaning of clause (b) under Explanation-1 to section
10(23FB).
(5) Whether AO can look into whether venture capital fund fulfills conditions laid
down in SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996.
24. In our considered view the AO is duty bound to enquire whether the assessee trust is
registered under the Registration Act, 1908 and has been granted certificate of
registration by SEBI under SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996. But his role is
confined to satisfy himself with such certificates granted and not beyond. Sub-clause (i)
and sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) under explanation-1 only requires to ensure that assessee
trust has certificates as mentioned therein. Even if certificates are granted under misrepresentation of facts then it is for the concerned authorities to look into the matter and
take action under the provisions of the concerned statute under which certificates are
granted. In this regard the observations of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of
Gestetner Duplicators P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) are very relevant. In that case the
Commissioner had granted recognition to the P.F. as far back as 1937. The assessee a
private limited company paid to sales-men a fixed monthly salary and commission at fixed
percentage of turnover and also paid employer’s contribution to the P.F. on the basis of
monthly salary as well as commission and credited them into individual account of these
sales-men in P.F. maintained and recognized by the Commissioner. A part of such commission
and consequently provident fund on such commission was sought to be disallowed. The
matter went up to the Hon. Supreme Court. It observed as under :“It would be conducive to judicial discipline and the maintaining of certainty and
uniformity in administering the law that the taxing authorities should proceed on
the basis that the recognition granted and available for any particular assessment
year implies that the provident fund satisfies all the conditions under rule 4 of Part
A of the Fourth Schedule to the Act, and not sit in judgment over it.”
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 18
Thus it was held that it was not open to the AO to take the view contrary to the
registration already granted by the CIT and therefore disallow a part of the contribution.
It was pointed out that when recognition continues in operation it would be implied that the
conditions laid down there-under are satisfied and any part of disallowance would
tentamount to questioning the recognition. In other words entries made in the register of
independent body should be accepted as true and they should not be questioned while
deciding the issue relating to the matters concluded by the entries made in such registers.
From this it follows that if assessee trust is registered with SEBI as per certificate
granted under Regulation 7(3) then it should be accepted that such certificate is granted
after ensuring that conditions laid down before granting of such certificate are fulfilled. In
other words conditions laid down in sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (ii) are deemed to be
fulfilled under explanation-1(b) to section 10(23FB), the moment relevant certificates are
produced before the AO.
Therefore, he is not required to go into violation of conditions, if any, pertaining to the
matters of grant of such certificates.
26. So far as condition laid down in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) under explanation-1 is
concerned what we consider appropriate for the AO is to find out whether any action for
default has been taken by SEBI under regulation -30 as referred to above for default
committed by the assessee trust. So far as any violation of investment pattern as laid down
in regulation 12(d) is concerned it is also covered under clause (a) of regulation-30 which
shows that assessee trust can be penalized for contravention of any provision of this Act or
these regulations. Thus, if assessee trust contravenes regulation-12 (d) then SEBI is
competent to penalize assessee trust within the powers given under regulation 30. So long
as SEBI does not find any default of any contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act or
SEBI (VCF) Regulation 1996 then it can be inferred that assessee trust fulfills the
conditions laid down under these regulations. The AO, however, can look into the issue
whether assessee trust fulfills such conditions as laid down in regulation 12 (d) (and not
under regulation-8) and report the matter to SEBI taking a protective view under I.T. Act,
1961. If finally SEBI does not find any default on the part of the assessee trust then view
of the AO that there is violation cannot survive. In other words fulfillment of condition
under sub-clause (iii) is subject to the final finding by SEBI authorities. Their final view on
the alleged contravention by the assessee trust will prevail over the view of AO. Thus in our
view role of the AO in examining the issue about fulfillment of conditions laid down in clause
(b) is limited to the extent as described above.
(6) Whether there is any violation of investment norms:
27. It is undisputed fact that during the Asst. Year in question assessee has invested a sum
of Rs. 10.54 crores in venture fund assistance i.e. in the equities of specified undertakings.
It had a corpus of 19.05 crores this year. View of the AO is that as per regulation 12(d)(i)
assessee should have invested 66.67% of the corpus fund in the equity link instruments. He
worked out such 66.67% of total corpus of 19.05 crores and held that it should have
invested 15.25 crores in the equities of specified companies. As against this, it has invested
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 19
only 10.54 crores and hence there is a violation of investment norms. The case of the
assessee is that it is not required to invest 66.67% of entire corpus but only of investible
funds. Entire corpus is not investible funds. In our considered view the contention raised by
ld. AR in this behalf is legally correct. Regulation 12(d)(i) requires investment of 66.67% of
the investible funds. The words ‘investible funds’ are defined in definition 2(hh) of
Regulation as above. It means corpus of the fund net of expenditure for administration and
management of the fund. Sub-clause (i) of clause (B) of provision 5 in the trust deed
provides that 80% of the corpus of the fund is required to be invested in the specified
undertakings and the balance in cash and or in highly liquid form. Sub-clause (iii) of clause
(B) of provision 5 of trust deed provides that 20% of the total sum will be kept aside as
working capital. Thus the trust deed has empowered the assessee to invest 80% of the
corpus in specified undertaking. Therefore, percentage 66.67% will be applied to 80% of
corpus and not to 100% of the corpus. May be in the opinion of AO, 20% of the corpus is too
high a sum for keeping apart for administration and management or as working capital, but
so long as it is permitted by the trust deed and no mala fide is found, or no contravention of
any provision of SEBI (VCF) Regulation 1996 is found, the AO cannot question why 20% was
kept apart and why not 2 or 3% only which in his opinion could have been reasonable. There
are clear stipulations in the SEBI (VCF) Regulation 1996 which put restriction on any other
investment other than permitted under the regulation. Accordingly, when the claim of the
assessee is that it has invested 66.67% of 80% of the corpus in specified undertaking, then
no fault in investment pattern can be found. In our view the interpretation adopted by the
AO that entire corpus should be treated as investible fund is not sustainable in law. It is
for the assessee trust to decide how much should be investible fund out of the corpus of
the fund, which is net of expenditure for administration and management. The copy of the
trust deed is clearly submitted to the SEBI as per criteria contained in regulation 4(b)(i).
If no fault is found by the SEBI while granting certificate of registration to the trust in
keeping apart 20% of the corpus for management and administration then AO cannot bypass
the judgment of SEBI and proceed to estimate as to how much should be kept apart for
administration and management and how much should be the investible fund out of the
corpus fund. Therefore, once the trust deed is registered under Registration Act, 1908 and
certificate is granted by SEBI to this trust deed for carrying out activities, ear marking
80% of corpus as investible fund, then the AO cannot adopt a different measure. There is
one point which requires special mention. It is mentioned by the AO that before Asst. Year
2004-05 i.e. before 31.3.2004 assessee trust was required to invest 75% of investible fund
into equity of specified undertaking and the changes to 66.67% have come only w.e.f.
5.4.2005 If trust is required to invest @ 75% of the investible fund then assessee fund
was required to invest a sum of Rs. 11.43 crores as against actual investment of 10.54
crores. There is a marginal short-fall. The claim of the assessee is that it has sanctioned
for investment of sum of Rs. 14.54 crores which was in the pipe line for investment. In
other words, it had identified the undertakings and sanctioned funds but actual investment
was taking time due to the procedure and formalities.
28. In our considered view such marginal short-fall cannot be called to be an aberation in
the investment norms as per SEBI (VCF) Regulations 1996. This minor short fall are not in
any way the violation of investment norms laid down in SEBI Regulations. It could not have
been practically possible to identify and invest the requisite percentage of investible fund
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 20
in specified undertakings, in the very year of creation of Venture Capital Fund or even say
within a couple of years thereafter, as it may be commercially hazardous to investment
money into undertakings without their being any proper evaluation and satisfaction before
making investment, therefore, the investment in specified undertaking is likely to take time.
Keeping this difficulty in mind SEBI has inserted the explanation below sub-clause (e) in the
Regulation 12(d)(ii). This explanation provides that investment conditions and restriction as
contained in Regulation 12(d) shall be achieved by the Venture Capital Fund by the end of its
life cycle. This explanation seems to have taken care of the difficulties of Venture Capital
Fund in achieving investment norms within the very year of its creation or subsequently
thereafter, on account of the fear of losing their capital by investing in wrong undertakings.
This aspect will also be considered little later in the following paragraph. We, for the
present, are of the considered view that, there is no violation of investment norms. Even if
there is a short-fall then it could not be dubbed as non-fulfillment of the condition
attracting sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of explanation-1 to section 10(23FB). As observed
above, it is for the SEBI authorities to decide whether there is any violation of SEBI
Regulation including the deficiency in investment pattern as per Regulation 12(d). Even if the
AO thinks that there is a short-fall in investment in specified undertaking and hence there
is violation of SEBI Regulation, he should have referred the matter to the SEBI authorities
and waited for their decision and till then could have proceeded to frame a protective
assessment. Having not done so and not referring the matter to the SEBI the AO cannot
hold that there is violation of SEBI Regulations.
(7) Whether investment pattern can be achieved by the end of life cycle of the fund:
29. As observed above, there is an amendment in Regulation 12(d) w.e.f. 5.4.2004 thereby an
explanation has been inserted below sub-clause (e) in Regulation 12(d)(ii). According to the
explanation the investment pattern can be achieved by the Venture Capital Fund by the end
of life cycle. In other words 66.67% of investment of investible fund in specified
undertakings can be achieved by the end of life cycle of the Venture Capital Fund which in
the present case is 10 years. The case of the AO is that this explanation will not be
applicable to Asst. Year 2004- 05 i.e. F.Y.2003-04 and earlier years. It would be effective
for FY 2004- 05 onwards. In our considered view the explanation so inserted, clarifies as to
what legislators intended by the main provision. This explanation is clarificatory in nature
and would be applicable to the existing trust deed/Venture Capital Fund also. It is not a
case that this explanation would be applicable only to those venture capital funds which are
created on or after 5.4.2004. No such intention emerges from the reading of the relevant
regulation. On the other hand, what appears to us is that in order to remove the difficulties
faced by the venture capital funds in not meeting the investment norms as per regulation
12(d) within the year of its inception or subsequent thereto, it was considered fit to
introduce the explanation and enable the venture capital fund to meet out the target by the
end of their life cycle. Therefore, this explanation would be applicable to existing trusts
also which are to end their life cycle after 5.4.2004. In other words if a trust has not been
able to meet the investment norms in initial years and there is a deficiency which continues
to exist in subsequent years then it will not be treated as a default. If deficiency in years
after 5.4.2004 is not treated as default then it does not stand to logic that deficiency in
years prior to 5.4.2004 should be treated as default.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 21
30. In our considered view by inserting this explanation SEBI has condoned the default of
lack of adequate investment in specified undertakings as per regulation 12(d) and enabled
the venture capital fund to achieve such target by the end of life cycle. In any case any
perceived default has to be resolved by SEBI. Apparently SEBI does not find any fault by
virtue of explanation in regulation 12(d) whereby deficiency in earlier years has been
condoned by permitting the capital venture fund to fulfill the target by the end of their life
cycle. Therefore, such deficiency in earlier years (prior to 5.4.2004) cannot be treated as
default and violation. From that point of view also explanation would be retrospectively
operative, though stated to be effective from 5.4.2004 only. Therefore, if we consider the
explanation under regulation 12(d)(ii) we do not treat the deficiency, if any, as a default or
violation of SEBI regulation and therefore, any violation of sub-clause (iii) of clause (b)
under explanation-1 of section 10(23FB).
(8) What is the effect of amendment by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2008:
31. As observed above, there is a change in the pattern of income exempted u/s 10(23FB).
As explained in the explanatory note referred to above while introducing the amendment in
section 10(23FB), the exemption is now restricted to income from investment in specified
undertaking. In other words, income from investment in other avenues other than
investment in specified undertaking will not get exemption. From this it follows that if
venture capital fund is investing not only in specified undertaking but also elsewhere then
income from both the sources will get exemption upto 31.3.2008. After the amendment
w.e.f. 1.4.2008 exemption is now restricted to one source only i.e. investment in specified
undertakings. From this it follows that prior to 1.4.2008, if venture capital fund has
invested in F.D. in bank and earned interest income therefrom, then such interest income
would be exempt as per existing provision. ITAT Mumbai ‘A’ Bench in the case of ITAO vs.
M/s Kshitij Venture Capital Fund in ITA No.2147/Mum/2010 Asst. Year 2006-07
pronounced on 9th March, 2011 held on similar facts as under :“13. We heard both the parties. The issue is whether interest on temporary
investments of Rs. 16,09,900/- and profit on sale Units of Mutual fund of Rs
1,00,91,000/- is entitled to exemption u/s. 10(23FB). Section 10(23FB) as applicable
to the year under appeal is as under:
Any income of venture capital company or venture capital fund set up to raise funds
for investment in a venture capital undertaking.
14. Thus the exemption in the case of Venture Capital Fund was in respect of any
income. There is no restriction or requirement regarding the source of income for
grant of exemption u/s. 10(23FB). It is only by Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f. 1st April,
2008, an amendment to section 10(23FB) was brought about restricting the
exemption under that section to income from Investment by the Venture Capital
Fund in a venture capital undertaking. For this purpose, the said clause (c) of
Explanation 1 has also been amended to define “Venture Capital Undertaking”. This
amendment was made effective from 1 .4.2008. By no stretch of imagination can this
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 22
amendment can be considered as clarificatory applicable to earlier Assessment Year.
The memorandum explaining the amendment to the Finance Bill, 2007 as well as the
CBDT circular explaining the provisions of the Finance Act, 2007 clarify that the
amendment proposed to section 10(23FB) was to restrict the scope of income for
which exemption under that section was available. Hence this amendment cannot be
considered as clarificatory but must be considered as prospective in effect. It is
not in dispute that the assessee is otherwise eligible for exemption u/s. 10(23FB).
Hence for the year under appeal, as per the provisions of section 10(23FB) as
applicable to the assessment year, any income of the venture capital Fund is exempt.
Hence we confirm the order of the CIT(A) and uphold his direction that that
interest on temporary investments of Rs. 16,09,900/- and profit on sale Units of
Mutual fund of Rs 1,00,91,000/- is entitled to exemption u/s.10(23FB).
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on
this 9th day of March, 2011.”
32. The above view is also supported by CBDT Circular of 2008 which clarifies the position
as under :The CBDT Circular No.3 of 2008 this case has been clarified.
Exemption for certain income of a venture capital company or venture capital fund.
14.2 Clause (23FB) of section 10 provides exemption in respect of any income of a venture
capital company or venture capital fund set up to raise funds for investment in a venture
capital undertaking. Such Venture capital undertaking has been defined in clause(c) of
explanation 1 to clause (23FB) to mean a venture capital undertaking referred to in the
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Venture Capital funds) Regulations, 1996, made
under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, and notified as such in the
Official gazette by the Board for the purposes of the clause.
With a view to make the tax benefit more focused and to channelize existing as well as
future investments in key, risk prone thrust areas clause (23FB) has been amended whereby
such exemption will now be available only in respect of income of a venture capital company
or venture capital fund from investment in a venture capital undertaking
14.3. Applicability : This amendment will take effect from the 1st day of April,
2008, and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 and
subsequent assessment years.
33. The above view is also supported by the decision of Mumbai Tribunal India Value Fund
vs. ACIT (2010) 129 TTJ (Mumbai) 611 wherein the issue of exemption of interest income
from FDR was involved. The Tribunal in that case held as under :Held: The words “set up to raise funds for investment” have been substituted by
the words “from investment” by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1st April, 2008. By this
substitution, the inference would be that any income of a venture capital company or
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 23
venture capital fund would be exempt only if it is generated from investment in
venture capital undertakings. But this restriction cannot be read in the earlier
provision, where the expression used was “set up to raise funds for investment’.
Whenever the legislature wanted to make particular items of income or sources of
income to be exempt, then it has been clearly provided in various provisions. In this
regard, the reading of s. 10(20), 10(2 1), 10(22), 10(23), 10(23FA) and 10(29) would
make things clear. The reading of these provisions would make it clear that the
legislature has either mentioned various incomes which are exempt; for example in
the case of s. 10(20) income from house property, capital gains, income from other
sources and income from trade or business is exempt. Alternatively, the legislature
has given a blank exemption, for example in the case of s. 10(22) where any income
in case of a university etc., was made fully exempt. In some cases, restrictive
expression has been used, for example in case of s. 10(29) the income of an
authority for marketing commodities only income derived from the letting of
godowns or warehouses for storage, etc., has been provided to be exempt. Thus the
legislature in its own wisdom has provided exemption in various formats and in some
cases either whole of the income is provided to be exempt or income from particular
sources is provided to be exempt or income derived from particular activity is
provided to be exempt.
(Paras 20 & 21}
Thus, under s. 10(23BF) exemption is available on any income to a venture capital fund or
venture capital company, which has been set up to raise funds for investment in venture
capital undertakings. Perhaps the legislature has itself noted the situation that there may
be circumstances where income may be earned from other activities for example income
from interest and therefore, legislature has incorporated the restricted expression by
substituting the words “set up to raise funds for investment” by the words “from
investment” w.e.f. asst. yr. 2008-09, which means from that year the exemption would be
available only from income generated from such investments in the venture capital
The contribution and the investment cannot be matched to a particular date. The venture
capital fund may identify a particular investment and then he would issue draw down notice
on contributors who have agreed to contribute but such contribution may come in staggered
fashion and come on various dates. In the intervening period if such monies are kept
temporarily in the FDRs no fault can be found. No investor would give money to the venture
capital fund for just making investment in FDRs because ultimately even if such interest is
distributed to such investors then “passed through” concept ‘would be applicable and such
income becomes taxable in the hands of investor. Merely because FDRs are made for short
duration of few months that too, to match contributions with the investment in the
intervening period cannot lead to the conclusion that assessee venture capital fund was
mainly engaged in the business of investing fund in FDRs.
34. Thus the effect of amendment of Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2008 in section 10(23FB)
is clear. Before Asst. Year 2007-08 income from venture capital fund from any source,
(whether income from investment as per SEBI guidelines or from any other source) would
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 24
be exempt including the interest income of F.D. It is only from Asst. Year 2008-09 onwards
the income from investment in specified undertakings would be exempt and other income
would be taxable. In this regard we may add that income which is exempt u/s 10(23FB)
would be shared by the respective investors and would be taxable in their individual hands
as per section 15(U) already referred above.
(9) Whether investment in FD is violation of SEBI Regulation or of trust deed:
35. In fact the trust-deed permits the investment of surplus funds into F.D. in the bank.
Sub-clause (iv) of clause (B) of provision 5 in the trust deed reads as under :(iv) Investment of Temporary Surplus
Any surplus funds including funds lying in Working Capital account whether pending
disbursement or distribution may be invested in risk free or lower risk investments e.g.
bank deposits, units of debit/gift mutual funds, etc.
36. Therefore, the trust deed has clearly empowered the assessee to invest surplus into
the fixed deposits. When we go through regulation 12(d) it provides a target of 75% upto
5.4.2004 and 66.67% thereafter of the investible fund to be invested in specified
undertaking and upto 3 3.33% in other avenues as per clause (ii) of regulation 12(d). In
other words there is likelihood of some surplus, if 33.33% is not invested in other avenues.
Such surplus or surpluses arising out of working capital of 20% of investible funds can be
parked in the F.D. as provided in the trust deed. Accordingly, in our considered view the
investment in F.D. does not violate any of the provisions either under SEBI guidelines or of
the trust-deed. In fact there is no express prohibition of investment in FD as per
regulation 12(d). Therefore, as per above discussion, we hold that ld. CIT(A) was justified in
granting exemption u/s 10(23FB) on interest income of Rs.75.56 lacs earned from bank
deposits.
36.1 Accordingly, the order of ld. CIT(A) is upheld and appeal filed by the Revenue is
dismissed.
ITA No.245/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2001-02 (Revenue’s appeal)
37. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground :(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in deleting the addition made on account of
violation of SEBI Regulation and Provisions contained in Section 10(23FB) by the assessee.
ITA No.246/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2004-05 (Revenue’s appeal)
38. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground :(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in deleting the addition made on account of
violation of SEBI Regulation and Provisions contained in Section 10(23FB) by the assessee.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 25
ITA No.247/Ahd/2008 Asst. Year 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal)
39. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground :(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in deleting the addition made on account of
violation of SEBI Regulation and Provisions contained in Section 10(23FB) by the assessee.
ITA No.2773/Ahd/2008 Asst. Year 2002-03 (Revenue’s appeal)
40. In this appeal the Revenue has raised the following ground :(1) The ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and on law in deleting the addition made on account of
violation of SEBI Regulation and Provisions contained in Section 10(23FB) by the assessee
of Rs.76,39,300/41. As per discussion held by us in Asst. Year 2003-04 we hold that interest income earned
on bank deposit is exempt u/s 10(23FB) and there is no decision of SEBI that there is any
violation of SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulation 1996 and, therefore, the AO cannot
hold that there was such violation. In any case as per discussion held above in Asst. Year
2003-04 we do not consider that there is any violation as perceived by the AO. As a result,
the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed.
42. C.O.No.24/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2001-02, C.O. No.25/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2004-05,
C.O. No.26/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2005-06 and C.O.No.222/Ahd/2009 Asst. Year 2002-03
are not pressed by the ld. AR and hence they are dismissed as not pressed.
43. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the
assessee are dismissed.
Order was pronounced in open Court on 27/5/11.
www.allindiantaxes.com
Page 26