Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Latin Manharlal Securities Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax 4 ... on 24 May, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND S/SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.A. No. 428M/2018
(Arising out of ITA No. 680/Mum/2016)
(निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)
Latin Manharlal Securities P. Ltd. बिधम / ACIT-4(3)
5th Floor, 124 Viraj Bldg, S.V. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Road, Khar (W), Mumbai- Mumbai-400020.
400052.
स्थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.PAN/GIR No. : AAACL2767L
(अपीलाथी/ Appellant)/Applicant .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)
Revenue by: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)
Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Wagle(AR)
सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 29.03.2019
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 24.05.2019
ORDER
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM
This order shall dispose of the Miscellaneous Application Bearing No. 428/M/2018 moved by applicant Arising out of ITA. No. 680/M/16 for the A.Y.2010-11 decided on dated 29.05.2018.
2. It is averred by the applicant that the Hon'ble Bench has decided the ITA. No.680/M/2016 for the A.Y.2010-11 by virtue of order dated 29.05.2018 by allowing the appeal of the assessee. The appellant took the plea that the share held as stock in trade is not required to be considered as investment for the purpose of Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act. The appellant has also given his working on the issue. The Hon'ble Bench has held that the investment in art gallery and in subsidiary company should be excluded. But this Hon'ble Bench has not mentioned about the exclusion of shares held as stock in trade, MA 428/Mum/2018 therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record, hence, the order required to be rectified to this extent that the share held as stock in trade required to be excluded while calculating the disallowance u/s 80D(2)(iii) of the act.
2. Notice given.
3. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. On appraisal of the finding, we noticed that the matter of controversy has been adjudicated on merits. Any change on merits nowhere comes with the provisions u/s 254(2) of the Act, 1961. Moreover, required rectification would tantamount review of the appeal which is not permissible in accordance with law. Taking into account, all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the present miscellaneous application nowhere deserves to be allowed, therefore, we dismissed the miscellaneous application.
In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2019 Sd/- Sd/-
(SHAMIM YAHYA) (AMARJIT SINGH)
ले खासदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dt: 24 .05.2019
vijay
Copy to :
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. The CIT(A)
4. The CIT
5. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, "A", Bench (True copy) By order ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES