9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 2121 - AT - Income TaxAddition under section 36 - amount utilized the borrowed funds for specified persons (related parties) - outstanding sundry debts against the persons namely Aayush Shah, Anika and Yugam who were the persons defined under section 40A(2)(b)on which no interest was charged - Held that - Admittedly, the assessee, though, had surplus funds but from the facts on file it is clear that the assessee had used the overdraft funds for settlement of accounts of the persons specified under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. However, the other facts remain that the assessee had also received interest from the FDR pledged with the bank in relation to the overdraft facility. Under the circumstances, the disallowance, if any, in our view, should be restricted to net interest paid on the overdraft amount in relation to payments made by the assessee on behalf of the specified persons under section 40A(2)(b). We accordingly restrict the disallowance to the extent of net interest paid by the assessee on overdraft account. Partly decided in favour of the assessee. Depreciation on stock exchange card - Held that - Tribunal in the case of Pavak Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 2013 (9) TMI 608 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein held when the membership ceased to exist and in lieu of the card, new asset came into existence i.e. 1000 shares as well as rights to trade and clearing in the stock exchange and the acquisition of the cost of trade and clearing has been provided to be nil as per proviso to section 55(2)(ab) of the Act, then the entire cost of membership as stands in the books of accounts of the assessee would be treated as cost of acquisition of 1000 shares which is not a depreciable asset and hence the claim of the assessee to claim depreciation on demutualization or corporatization of the stock exchange card would not be justifiable. Thus it is held that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation on the BSE card. - Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under Section 36 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Claim of depreciation on stock exchange card post-demutualization. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Ground No. 1: - Not Pressed: The appellant did not press Ground No. 1, and it was dismissed accordingly. Ground No. 2: Disallowance of Interest under Section 36 of the Act - Assessment Proceedings: The Assessing Officer (AO) noted an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,08,43,143/- against certain specified persons under Section 40A(2)(b) with no interest charged. The assessee had paid interest of Rs. 3,12,819/- on an overdraft from the bank. - AO's Conclusion: The AO concluded that the borrowed funds were used for non-interest-bearing payments on behalf of the specified persons, leading to an interest expenditure of Rs. 9,13,571/-, but restricted the disallowance to Rs. 3,12,819/-. - CIT(A) Decision: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) agreed with the AO but restricted the disallowance to Rs. 2,23,957/-. - Appellant's Argument: The assessee argued that it had sufficient own funds and the overdraft was mandatorily maintained for stock exchange transactions, with net interest paid being Rs. 81,259/- after considering interest received on Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDR). - Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the submissions and restricted the disallowance to Rs. 81,259/-, the net interest paid by the assessee on the overdraft account. This issue was partly allowed in favor of the assessee. Ground No. 3: Claim of Depreciation on Stock Exchange Card - AO's Observation: The AO disallowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 1,48,918/- on the stock exchange card. - CIT(A) Decision: The CIT(A) noted the demutualization and corporatization of the stock exchange, resulting in new trade rights with a deemed value of nil as per Section 55(2)(ab). Consequently, the written down value (WDV) of the old card was considered nil, disallowing the depreciation claim. - Tribunal's Reference to Previous Cases: The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including "Sino Securities (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer" and "Pavak Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ITO," which held that post-demutualization, the old rights were extinguished and new rights were acquired with a value deemed to be nil. - Tribunal's Conclusion: Following the precedents, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on the BSE card, deciding this issue against the assessee. Ground No. 4: General in Nature - No Adjudication Required: This ground was general and did not require adjudication. Final Decision: - The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with Ground No. 2 being partly allowed in favor of the assessee and Ground No. 3 decided against the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.05.2015.
|
