2010 (8) TMI 998 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Deduction of bad debts u/s 36(2)
- Apportionment of business expenses between trading and brokerage business
- Disallowance u/s 14A
- Interest paid as per SEBI Interest Liability Regularization Scheme, 2004
- Disallowance of VSAT and Lease Line charges as fee for technical services u/s 40(ia)

Deduction of Bad Debts u/s 36(2):
The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for bad debts written off, stating non-satisfaction of conditions u/s 36(2). The Special Bench decision in another case favored the assessee. The Tribunal remanded the issue to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on the Special Bench's principles, allowing the assessee's ground for statistical purposes.

Apportionment of Business Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of business expenses related to share trading activities, considering them as speculation business. The Tribunal found the allocation based on turnover to be erroneous and remanded the issue for a fresh assessment, directing a reasonable allocation without exceeding the original disallowance.

Disallowance u/s 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of expenditure related to dividend income u/s 14A. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's estimation of 5% of dividend income as reasonable expenditure, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and partially allowing the assessee's ground.

Interest Paid as per SEBI Interest Liability Regularization Scheme, 2004:
The Assessing Officer disallowed interest payment under the SEBI scheme as prior period expenditure. The Tribunal held the liability crystallized when the scheme was introduced, allowing the deduction for the interest paid in the relevant assessment year.

Disallowance of VSAT and Lease Line Charges:
The Assessing Officer disallowed VSAT and Lease Line charges as fee for technical services u/s 40(ia). The Tribunal, following precedent, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order in favor of the assessee, dismissing the revenue's ground on this issue.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, while the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.