9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against Revenue. Disallownace of general expenses on printing and staionery, staff welfare expenditure etc. - Held that:- The AO has made disallowance on ad hoc basis and there is no reason for the same - Only expenditure of Rs.6560/- incurred on account of income tax is to be disallowed apart from disallowance restricted at Rs.5000 - Partly allowed in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of substantial amounts at frequent intervals cannot be treated as a change in investments but have to be treated as dealing in shares and treatment of share dealings in earlier year(s) is not a factor. 4. That ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not considering that in terms of Para 11 of CBDT Circular No. 4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 the purchase and sale of shares shown by the assessee are essentially in the nature of assessee's business activities and as such the claim of Sec. 10(38) allowed by the CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee disclosed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.43,59,492/- and Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs.18,39,391 from share transactions. The Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made by assessee out of its own funds and considering the same the CIT(A) deleted the addition vide para-5 of his appellate order as under:- "5. The contentions of the appellant as summed up above have been considered in the context of the findings arrived at by the Assessing Officer in his order while treating the income from share transactions as appellant's business income. It is seen that the appellant has consistently been showing her shares as investments and the same has been accepted as such by the department in earlier years and the Assessing Officer has not brought in any fresh evidence in his Assessment Order for the present year to the contrary. He has simply referred to the magnitude of share transaction and come to his own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its Income-tax Return as Long Term Capital Gain and Rs.18,39,391/- as Short Term Capital Gains. This ground of the appellant is therefore allowed." 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts of the case record. We find that AO has treated the entire investment accounts as trading account treating the transactions as business transactions but the assessee treated capital gains either short term or long term. The assessee has never invested any borrowed funds rather it has invested her own funds. The assessee has disclosed the purchase and sale and gains arising out of sale as capital gains all along and relevant details are disclosed above in para 4. In view of the above, we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly treated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessee could not substantiate such expenses he made disallowance at Rs.75,000/-. The CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing in para 6.2 as under: "6.2. In appeal it has been submitted that the expenses by their very nature have to be in cash and full narration are recorded in books. It is totally improper on the part of A.O. to state that the appellant failed to show that expenses were incurred for the purposes of business. The matter has been considered. As mentioned by me above, major portion of the expenses is towards salary and therefore even if the vouchers are in cash or self made the disallowance can be only to the extent of remaining expenditure. Accordingly, the disallowance restricted to Rs.5000/-. Relief R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
