9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - As far as fees there was TDS which was paid belatedly - Even though AO mentioned the same he did not disallow the amount - Only disallowance in the order is of the amount paid to advocate on which provisions of sec. 194J are not applicable as the amount was less than the limit - Provision of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be applied to amount paid to the advocate as there was no need to make TDS on that amount under the provisions - AO to allow the deduction. Cessation of liability - Writing off Income from other sources - treatment of interest income as 'income from other sources' – The amount was written back to P/L Account under provisions of sec.41(1) – the AO and the CIT(A) treated the same as other income - Even though there is no de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al against the order of CIT(A), Central-7, Mumbai dated 08.10.2008. The assessee has raised six grounds on various issues. 2. We have heard the ld. Counsel and the ld. DR in detail. Ground No.1 pertains to non-allowance of loss of Rs.58,420/- on transactions backed by delivery on the reason that the transaction are non-genuine in nature. The assessee belongs to Ketan Parekh Group of cases and was engaged in share broking and share trading and investment in share trading securities till 2004. The assessee claimed reduction in value of shares to the extent of Rs.58,420/- as loss in P L Account. There were no sale of shares during the year as the assessee's business was stopped because of suspension of trading in securities of this company o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ).The AO noticed that the assessee had deducted tax at source on profession fee under section 194J of the Act but had not paid the tax in time prescribed under section (1) of section 200. He disallowed the amount of Rs.12,025/- under section 40(a)(ia). Before CIT(A) it was submitted that out of the amount of Rs.2,39,875/- paid to R.S. Khandelwal Associates the assessee had deducted tax and has paid belatedly. Amount of Rs.12,025/- was paid to Advocate Dhruva Company. The amount was less than Rs.20,000/- therefore, there is no need for deducting tax. Accordingly, it was submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. However, CIT(A) confirmed the same. 3.1 After considering the rival contentions, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount was written back u/s 41(1), we are of the opinion that the same has to be considered as business income only, therefore, to that extent the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) are modified. The ground is allowed. 5. Ground No.4 pertains to treating business loss as speculation loss by invoking provisions of Explanation-2 to sec.73 thereby not setting off against income from other sources. While taking income of Rs.31,223/- as income from other sources, the business loss claimed as reduction in value was not set off considering that as speculation loss. We have already held in Ground No.1 that assessee is entitled to claim business loss and in ground No.3 as income from business. Assessee is entitled set off net business loss if any. Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
