9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s carried by Revenue before Hon’ble High Court and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. We further find that the facts of the case relied upon by ld. D.R. are distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- CIT(A) while upholding the disallowance u/s. 14A made by A.O, has given a finding that during the appellate proceedings, Assessee had not challenged the computation of disallowance and the disallowance made by the A.O was as per provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,56,530/- and ₹ 36,47,693/-and directing the A.O. to treat the impugned amounts as Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital Gain, and not as 'Business Income' . 4. On the other hand the grounds raised by the Assessee reads as under:- 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 6,79,793/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 We first take up Revenue s appeal (in ITA No. 3296/Ahd/2011). 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had shown income of ₹ 1,56,530/- as short term capital gains and ₹ 36,47, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. are distinguishable on facts. I am of the considered view that no adverse inference can be drawn from the facts of appellant being the niece of the founder of reliance group and her dealing primarily in the shares of Reliance group of companies. Thus, given the facts of the case, the case laws relied on by the appellant and following my decision in appellant's case for the immediately preceding A.Y, 2006-07 vide order dated 18-11-2010 in appeal No. CIT(A)- XI/702/08-09, I hold that the A.O. is not justified in treating the long term capital gains and short term capital gains as business income. He is directed to treat them as STCG and LTCG as returned by the appellant. Thus, these grounds of appeal are allowed. 3,4 Respectf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand ld. A.R. reiterated the submissions made before A.O and ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that Assessee had indulged in selling of shares only on 20 days in a year and the investments were in 14 to 15 scrips. With respect to the shares on which long term capital gains has been considered by Assessee it was submitted that those shares were predominantly acquired in A.Y 04-05 05-06 and for A.Y. 04-05 on identical facts when the matter was carried by Revenue to High Court, the Hon ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2013 order dated 19.08.2013. He also placed on record the copy of the aforesaid order. With respect to the shares on which Assessee had claimed the gains to be of short term he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appeal of Revenue was dismissed by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court. We further find that the facts of the case relied upon by ld. D.R. are distinguishable and not applicable to the present facts. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. We now take up Assessee s appeal in ITA No. 3128/Ahd/2011 10. During the course of assessment proceedings, A.O noticed that Assessee had shown huge investment of ₹ 14.03 crore but had disallowed only ₹ 72,389/- u/s. 14A of the Act. A.O was of the view that the disallowance made by the Assessee was not in accordance with Rule 8D. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er this Act. The appellant is also claiming that no expenditure been incurred in investing in shares/units. In such a case, the A.O. is supposed to make necessary disallowance as per the provisions of section 14A(2) r.w.r. 8D of the IT. Rules1962. The A.O. has followed the same procedure and accordingly application of Rule 8D is upheld. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not challenged computation of disallowance. I have also gone through the computation made by the A.O. and the same is as per the provisions of Rule 8D of IT. Rule,1962. In view of this, disallowance of ₹ 6,79,739/- made by the A.O. u/s. 14A is confirmed. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
