9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s – deduction claimed on arbitration charges paid – Held that:- The details placed before the first appellate authority in support of claim for deduction on account of arbitration charges, were not filed before the Assessing Officer and further the learned CIT(A) did not obtain any remand report from the A.O – it would be proper to set aside the order and remit the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - ITA No.6010/Mum/2009 - - - Dated:- 31-7-2013 - Shri R. S. Syal, AM And Dr. S. T. M. Pavalan, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri D. K. Sinha For the Respondent : Shri Pradip Kedia ORDER Per R. S. Syal (AM) : This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order passed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rage and Jobbing for which he maintained his office and kept staff for which certain expenses were incurred. It appears that the Assessing Officer confused the Arbitrage business with sale and purchase of certain shares. It is so because he has held that the assessee did not have opening and closing stock of shares. When the business of the assessee is exclusively of Arbitrage and Jobbing, there could have been no question of any opening and closing stock of shares. There were only 34 scrips from whose trading the assessee earned profit of Rs. 15.91 lakh by retaining them as capital assets. The details of such sale and purchase of shares is available on pages 1 and 2 of the paper book. First transaction is the case of Agro Tech Foods shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee claimed deduction of Rs. 7.28 lakh as arbitration charges paid. In the absence of any detail or confirmation or supporting evidence regarding these payments, the A.O. made disallowance of the equal amount. The learned CIT(A), on appreciation of certain material, deleted the addition. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. On a pertinent query, it was admitted by the learned AR that the details placed before the learned first appellate authority in support of claim for deduction on account of arbitration charges, were not filed before the Assessing Officer and further the learned CIT(A) did not obtain any remand report from the A.O. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
