9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the CIT (A)-36 Mumbai date 29.04.2011. The Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing business expenses of ₹ 28,33,628/- even though there was no business in existence during the year as assessee was debarred by SEBI to carry out business activities vide order dated 11.04.2011. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ock broker or merchant banker till further orders. This order was confirmed by SEBI vide order dated 21-06-2001. AO was of the opinion that assessee was not carrying any business as it was prohibited from undertaking any fresh business, therefore, the expenditure claimed toward business expenditure cannot be allowed. The other income shown by assessee was brought to tax under the head income from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness has actually been discontinued or closed down, he allowed the ground of assessee thereby allowing the expenditure. With reference to the income treated as income from other sources , the CIT (A) analyzed the position of the income and noticed that it comprises of bad debts, miscellaneous receipts written back which were to be taxed under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. With reference to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ultimately closed after SEBI orders were upheld by the judicial authorities. As far as impugned assessment year is concerned, it is to be considered that there is only a suspension of the business. This issue is upheld by the Coordinate Bench in the orders referred (Supra). Respectfully following the same, we dismiss the Revenue Ground No.1 and uphold the order of the CIT (A). With reference to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
