9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 4,25,000 in respect of admission fee paid to OTCEI. 2. Addition of Rs. 50,000 each in respect of expenses written off out of deferred revenue expenditure being 1/10th of admission fees of NSE. 3. Addition of Rs. 11,26,265 on account of speculation loss. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Addition of Rs. 4,25,000 in respect of admission fee paid to OTCEI: The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 4,25,000 for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99, which was part of a total payment of Rs. 8,50,000 made to OTCEI for acquiring membership. The AO disallowed the deduction, treating the expenditure as capital in nature, supported by decisions from the Calcutta High Court. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, stating that the expenditure did not pertain to the assessment years in question and was capital in nature, as it provided an enduring benefit. The Tribunal endorsed the CIT(A)'s reasoning, emphasizing that the expenditure led to the acquisition of a source of profit, thus lying in the capital field. Consequently, the disallowance of Rs. 4,25,000 for each assessment year was upheld, and the grounds for both years were dismissed. 2. Addition of Rs. 50,000 each in respect of expenses written off out of deferred revenue expenditure being 1/10th of admission fees of NSE: The assessee paid Rs. 5 lakh to the National Stock Exchange for acquiring membership and wrote it off over ten years. The AO disallowed the deduction, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this view, and the Tribunal agreed, stating that the admission fee for acquiring membership represented capital expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 50,000 for each assessment year was upheld, and the grounds for both years were dismissed. 3. Addition of Rs. 11,26,265 on account of speculation loss: The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 11,26,265 from share trading. The AO treated this as speculation loss under Explanation to section 73, as the assessee did not fall within the exempted categories. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's view, noting the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claim that the transactions were on behalf of clients. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the transactions were settled without delivery, thus falling under the definition of speculative transactions per section 43(5). The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's admission during assessment proceedings indicated that the loss was from its own share dealings. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 11,26,265 was upheld, and the ground for the assessment year 1997-98 was dismissed. 4. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C: The assessee contested the levy of interest, arguing that there was no specific order for charging it. The Tribunal noted that the assessment process involves determining both total income and tax/interest payable, and the computation forms (ITNS 150) indicating the levy of interest are part of the assessment order. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Kalyan Kumar Ray vs. CIT, which held that ITNS 150 is part of the assessment order. The Tribunal also referred to other judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala, which stated that the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is mandatory. Consequently, the levy of interest for both assessment years was upheld, and the grounds were dismissed. Conclusion: The appeals for both assessment years were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the disallowances and the levy of interest as determined by the lower authorities.
|
