9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of amended section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to transactions concluded before the amendment. 2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 3. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act. Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of Amended Section 94(7) The assessee challenged the disallowance of loss under "short-term capital gains" amounting to Rs. 4,69,15,726/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the amended section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the law applicable on the 1st day of April of the assessment year governs the assessment. The CIT(A) referenced several judicial decisions, including CIT vs Graigmore Plantations India Ltd. and Sedco Forex International Drill Inc vs. CIT, to support the view that the amended provisions of section 94(7) apply from 01.04.2005, affecting transactions in the previous year relevant to AY 2005-06. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the outcome of the assessee's writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment. Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A The AO disallowed Rs. 25,26,726/- on account of portfolio management fees and an estimated Rs. 5 lacs out of administrative expenses under section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance following the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. provided that the AO must determine the quantum of disallowable expenditure by a reasonable method if not satisfied with the assessee's claim. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with these judicial pronouncements. Issue 3: Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234D The assessee did not make any submissions regarding the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act. The Tribunal cited the mandatory nature of these provisions as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs Anjum M. H. Ghaswala And Others and other cases, and dismissed this ground. The AO was directed to allow consequential relief, if any, while giving effect to the Tribunal's directions. Conclusion The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for re-adjudication on specific issues.
|
