9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the dividend income. Decided partly in favour of assessee. Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) - VSAT charges and Leaseline charges paid to stock exchange - Failure to deduct TDS - Held that:- This issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Angel Capital and Debit Market Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] which has been followed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in A.Y. 2005-06 held VSAT and Lease Line charges paid by the assessee to Stock Exchange were merely reimbursement of the charges paid/payable by the Stock Exchange to the Department of Telecommunication - the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puted the disallowance at ₹ 9,58,760/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was explained that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration. The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that applicability of Rule 8D is from A.Y. 2008-09. However, at the same time the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the disallowance as per the formula given here under: Total Expenditure (Direct & Indirect) X Value of transaction yielding exempt income Value of Total Transactions 4. Aggrieved by this, the Revenue is before us and assessee is also in appeal against this finding of the Ld. CIT(A) qua ground No. 1 of ITA No. 7695/M/2010. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the findings of the AO. 6. Per co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel. The issues raised vide ground No. 2 have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra). Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, ground No. 2 is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. ITA No. 7695/Mum/2010- Assessee's appeal 13. As mentioned elsewhere, ground No. 1 has been decided alongwith ground No. 1 of Revenue's appeal and is partly allowed. 14. Ground No. 2 relates to the treatment of Short Term Capital Gain as business income. 15. While scrutinizing the return of income, the AO noticed that the assessee has purchased and sold the shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
