Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2009 (6) TMI AT This
Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to disallowance of SEBI turnover fees under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, sustaining addition of certain expenses, applicability of Explanation to section 73 on loss from purchase/sale of shares, and disallowance of speculative loss.
SEBI Turnover Fees Disallowance: The Assessing Officer disallowed SEBI turnover fee under section 43B as it was only a provision in the account and no payment had been made during the year. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance citing SEBI as a statutory body and the fee being a statutory liability. The assessee argued that the fee was not a tax, duty, or fee, and SEBI provided services in exchange for the fee. The department contended that section 43B applied as no actual payment was made. The Tribunal held that SEBI turnover charges were akin to tax, duty, or fee, and upheld the disallowance based on precedent. Personal Expenses Disallowance: The Assessing Officer disallowed certain telephone and car expenses for personal use, which the ld. CIT(A) restricted to 10%. The assessee argued that no personal benefit was specified, and as a private limited company, no such private use was envisaged. The Tribunal allowed the expenses as no personal user was shown for a private limited company. Speculative Loss Disallowance: The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of loss on account of trading as speculative loss, which was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee contended that the speculative profit should constitute its business activity, which was not the case here. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of speculative loss but directed examination of any profit on sale and purchase of shares for possible set off. Conclusion: The appeal was partly allowed, with the disallowance of SEBI turnover fees and speculative loss being upheld, while the disallowance of personal expenses was overturned. The assessee's argument regarding the applicability of Explanation to section 73 was not pressed and thus rejected.
|