Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Acit 19(3), Mumbai vs Sachin R. Tendulkar, Mumbai on 25 January, 2017
Hence, respectfully
following the decision of the coordinate Bench rendered in the case of ACIT vs.
Sachin R. Tendulkar (supra) we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and
direct the AO to delete the addition. Since, we have allowed the main ground of
appeal of the assessee, we do not deem it necessary to decide the alternative
ground taken without prejudice to the main ground.
J.S. Khalsa Steels (P) Ltd., Mandi ... vs Addl. Cit, Mandi Gobindgarh on 15 May, 2017
"31. Thereafter, Ld. CIT (A) considered the decision of Pune
Bench of Tribunal in the case of Kalyani Steels Ltd. v. Addl.
CIT [IT Appeal No. 1733 (Pune) of 2012, dated 30.01.2014]
and held that AO had involved Rule 8D without complying
with the requirement of section 14A(2) of the Act and also
noted that since the assessee has not claimed any
6
ITA No. 6965/ MUM/2017
Assessment Year: 2013-14
expenditure relating to the exempt income, therefore, no
disallowance was liable to be made and therefore
disallowance made by the AO was deleted. It is noted that
while making disallowance, the AO omitted to consider the
fact that the assessee is individual and not any corporate
assessee. The assessee has maintained separate accounts
with regard to its business income and expenses incurred in
earning the business income. It is further brought to our notice
that the expenses incurred with regard to the activity of
making investment in shares have been debited to the capital
account and have not been debited to P & L account. The P &
L A/c prepared by the assessee is exclusively for the purpose
of reflecting its transactions arising out of business activities
i.e. comprising of business income and business expenses.
Under these circumstances, there was heavy onus upon the
shoulders of the AO to establish if any of the expenses debited
in the P&L account did not pertain to its business activity but
with any other activity say for earning income from capital
gains. Unfortunately, no such exercise has been done by the
AO before invoking the provisions of section 14A. It was all the
more necessary in the light of the fact that expenses incurred
on PMS brokerage fee and other incidental expenses for
making investment into shares have not been debited in the P
& L account by the assessee.
The Coinage Act, 2011
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 (1) ... vs Citicorp Finance (India) Limited, ... on 23 February, 2018
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee an advocate by profession,
filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring
the total income of Rs. 2,55,70,220/-. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of
the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny. In response to the
notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) the authorized representative of the assessee
appeared before the AO and furnished the necessary details called for. Since,
the assessee had shown exempt income of Rs. 1,28,61,333/- AO asked the
assessee to submit working of disallowance under section 14A read with rule
8D. The assessee did not submit any working and the AO following the decision
2
ITA No. 6965/ MUM/2017
Assessment Year: 2013-14
of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Mumbai vs. Citicorp Finance India Ltd. (2007) 12 SOT 248 (Mum) and ITO vs.
Daga Capital (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) applied section 14A read with rule
8D and worked out the disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) at Rs. 15,04,494/-.
The AO inter alia making the aforesaid disallowance determined the total
income of the assessee at Rs. 2,72,67,470/-. The assessee challenged the
assessment order before the CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee
dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the AO u/s 14A read
with rule 8D. Against the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in
appeal before the Tribunal.
1