Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (12) TMI 841 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
1. Disallowance of motor car expenses including depreciation.
2. Disallowance of telephone expenses.
3. Disallowance of business promotion, conveyance, miscellaneous, and office expenses.
4. Nature of income from sale and purchase of shares.

Issue 1: Disallowance of motor car expenses including depreciation:
The dispute centered around the disallowance of motor car expenses by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) due to lack of a log book. The A.O. disallowed 20% for personal usage, later reduced to 5% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that without a log book, the estimate disallowance was justified as there was no proof of exclusive business use.

Issue 2: Disallowance of telephone expenses:
The A.O. disallowed 20% of telephone expenses for personal use, later reduced to 5% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that without detailed call records, the estimated disallowance was reasonable due to common personal use of telephones.

Issue 3: Disallowance of business promotion, conveyance, miscellaneous, and office expenses:
The A.O. disallowed 20% of these expenses due to lack of proper vouchers, reduced to 10% by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld a disallowance of Rs. 50,000, emphasizing that while proper evidence may not be possible for all expenses, the estimated disallowance was justified in the absence of supporting documentation.

Issue 4: Nature of income from sale and purchase of shares:
The A.O. treated Short Term Capital Gain as business income due to high frequency and volume of transactions. The CIT(A) differentiated bonus shares as capital gain and directed the A.O. to treat them as such. The Tribunal, considering the conduct of the assessee, concluded that most transactions were speculative and not investment-based, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision and treating the gain as business income.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of evaluating each case's specific facts to determine the true nature of transactions, especially in the context of share trading activities.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates