9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 728X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM For The Assessee : Shri Subhash Shetty, AR For The Revenue : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These two appeals one by the assessee and one by the Revenue are arising out of the different orders of CIT(A)-8, Mumbai, in appeal No. CIT(A)-8/Cir4/220 432/2010-11 2011-12 dated 01-12-2011 06-09-2013. The Assessments were framed by ACIT, Circle 4(2), Mumbai for the A.Ys. 2008-09-2009-10 vide orders dated 19-11-2010 30-11-2011 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act ). 2. The only issue in appeal of assessee in ITA No. 1708/Mum/2012 is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by AO in regard to expenses relatable to exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which yielded exempt income. Apparently, any expenditure incurred for undertaking transactions for shares which subsequently yielded exempt income is required to be treated as expenditure incurred for earning of exempt dividend income. Therefore, the assessee's contention that no expenditure had been incurred for earning of exempt income is not acceptable. The assessee has however, not maintained any details of expenses incurred for undertaking transactions of shares which have yielded exempt income. The amount of such expenditure is, therefore, required to be determined as per provisions of Rule 8D. In view of above discussion, the addition is confirmed. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. Aggrieved, now assessee is in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee converted its stock in trade in investment and had already paid tax on conversion which was treated as business income without appreciating the fact that it was suo-moto action of the assessee. 7. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Tribunal s order in Para 3.2 and 3.3 of CIT(A) s order which reads as under: - 3.2 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant carefully. It is seen that similar issue was involved in appellant's own case in A.Y. 2006-07. My predecessor while deciding appeal of the appellant for A.Y. 2006-07 in Appeal No.IT/CIT(A)IV/Cir.4/360/0S-09, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Y. 2006-07, following my predecessor's order in the case of appellant for A.Y. 2006-07 mentioned in preceding para, the AO is directed not to treat the Short Term Capital Gain as business income. This ground of appeal is thus allowed. 8. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal in earlier years i.e. AY 2005-06 in ITA No. 1497/Mum/2009 order dated 07-03-2012 has restored the matter back to the file of the AO to treat the shares held by company for less than 30 days as business income and wherever shares held for more than 30 days treat the same as capital gain. For this Tribunal vide Para 9 observed as under: - 9. Taking into the facts into consideration, we find no reason to deviate from the decision take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
