9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance. Considering the peculiarity of the fact that the assessee earned only a sum of ₹ 1,10,518/- as exempt income. The assessee has sufficient funds and earned interest income of ₹ 3,55,692/-. Thus, we respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench in Vahanvati Consultants P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016 (8) TMI 365 - ITAT MUMBAI), restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to ₹ 1,10,518/-. - ITA No. 2319/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2017 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member And Pawan Singh, Judicial Member Assessee by : Shri Venugopal C. Nair (AR) Revenue by : Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal (DR) ORDER Per Pawan Singh, J. M. 1. This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. The Ld.AR of the assessee argued that during the year under consideration, the assessee dealt with in 14 securities. Out of 14 securities, the assessee earned 97% of its gain from two securities i.e. Jain Irrigation and REC LTD. and in rest of the state, there was a Short Term Capital Loss (STCL). The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that in earlier years the similar income was accepted by AO as a STCG in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR of the assessee in support of his submission relied upon the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in Paresh D. Shah vs. JCIT in ITA No. 6602/Mum/2009 dated 20. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 183610 2 DISHAMAN 35929 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35929 3 JAIN IRRIGATIO N 6353664 -231576 1375027 197509 939923 267771 8902318 4 NHPC 0 410 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 0 0 -39813 11 SHREE PRECO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 VIMTALAB S 0 4860 -19835 0 0 0 0 0 -14975 13 VOLTAS 0 0 0 6743 0 0 0 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in Paresh D. Shah (supra) while considering the similar issue held as under: 5. We have also noted that it is an admitted position - both by the Assessing Officer as also by the CIT(A) - that the material facts of the present assessment year are the same as of the immediately preceding assessment year which has been decided in favour of the assessee by the coordinate bench. As a matter of fact, the shares sold in the current year are carried forward from the earlier year, and, vide Tribunal's order for the said year, these shares were held as investments. In this view of the matter, the sale of these shares cannot give rise to an income taxable under the head 'profit and gains from business and profession'; the said incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vati Consultants P. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 8700/Mum/2011 and on Sanghvi Apporva Lalubhai (HUF) Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 7767/Mum/2014. On the other hand the ld DR for the revenue supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have considered rival contention of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. During the assessment the AO observed that the assessee earned the exempt income of ₹ 1,10,518/-. The assessee has not made any voluntary disallowance. The AO asked the assessee as to why the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D should not be made. The assessee contended that no expenses were incurred by the assessee to earn the exempt income. The contention of the assessee was not accepted and the AO invoke the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
