Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 869 - ITAT MUMBAIDisallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D - As argued by assessee that its own funds is more than the investments, therefore, there should not be interest disallowance in accordance with law - HELD THAT:- All these figures speaks that the own funds of the assessee is more than the investment. No interest disallowance is required in the interest of justice. Moreover, we found that the AO considered investment in Gold and Silver Coins while calculating expenditure to earn the exempt income but those investment which yielded the exempt income is liable to be considered while calculating the expenditure to earn the exempt income in view of the provisions u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(iii). In this regard, we also placed reliance upon the decision of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments P. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 1124 - ITAT DELHI]. Accordingly, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. TDS u/s 194J - disallowance of lease line payment to stock exchanges - Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- As transaction charges are in nature of payment made for facilities provided by stock exchange and no TDS was deductible u/s 194J of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd [2016 (3) TMI 1419 - SUPREME COURT], no doubt, the claim of the assessee is liable to be allowable, hence, we ordered accordingly. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Calculation of the long term capital gain for the period w.e.f. allocation of shares - contention of the assessee is that the indexation to calculate the capital gain is liable to be reckoned w.e.f allotment of BSE card and not from the date of BSE equity shares issued to the appellants - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Third Member in case of M/s. Techno Shares & Stock Ltd. [2019 (8) TMI 1770 - ITAT MUMBAI] has held that the period of holding of shares of BSE Ltd. shall be reckoned from the date of original membership of BSE and not from date of allotment of shares in BSE Ltd. Now it is clear that for computing the capital gain, indexation is liable to be considered from the date of original membership of BSE and not from the date of allotment of shares in BSE Ltd. By honoring the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Tribunal (supra), we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the claim of the assessee and direct the AO to reckon the capital gain accordingly. Disallowance of sub-brokerage paid to various parties - difference between amount accounted for by appellant in its books of account and the amount accounted for by the recipients in connection with sub-brokerage - HELD THAT:- No doubt, the confirmation is higher than disallowance. There is no need to disallowance the difference because the recipient has confirmed the higher sub-brokerage. The disallowance nowhere seems justifiable, therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Reduction of rebate u/s 88E - contention of the assessee is that the bad debt expenses and Telephone Expense nowhere rise in account trading share. The said disallowance is unjustifiable - HELD THAT:- Working of the AO has been confirmed by CIT(A), the said working nowhere demonstrate about the bad debts expenses, therefore, in the said circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) in question and restore the issue before the AO to recalculate the claim of the assessee by considering the bad debts expenses and Telephone Expense in accordance with law. Needless to say that an opportunity of being heard is liable to be given to the assessee. Accordingly, this issue is restored to the file of AO. TDS u/s 194J - disallowance of amount paid as transaction charges to Stock Exchange on the ground of that the assessee has failed to deduct the tax at source - HELD THAT:- Such charges are nothing but payment made for facilities provided by Stock Exchange, therefore, no contention of such payment would, therefore, be deductible u/s 194J of the Act by relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 1419 - SUPREME COURT] We set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and allowed the claim of the assessee accordingly.
|