9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 844X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the issue before the AO to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity being heard to the parties in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue is hereby allowed. Loss occurred in trading of futures and Options - claimed as speculation loss in Return of Income - Held that:- We noticed that the AO has already allowed the claim of the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08 and 2010-11 and specifically held that the income from F & O activities pertain to the head of business and not speculation. In the A.Y. 2007-08. AO has held that the as per Section 43(5) of the Act, loss in deviating trading is a business loss and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of kg. 33.30 lacs to ₹ 8.76 fact made ins 14A read with Rule 8D of the 1-tax Act, 1961 where-in it is mandatory to apply Rule 8?' 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ed C1T4) has erred in restricting the disallowance made w 144 read with Rule 8tJ of the I-tax Act, 1961 where-in it is mandatory to apply Rule 8D in respect of income not forming part of the income? 3, Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the LdCIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made its 144 read with Rule 8D of the I-tax Act, 1961 without noting the fact that, the assessee had provided the details of speculation income and based on bifurcation of income,&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) to the tune of ₹ 8,76,302/ lacs u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The Assessing Officer assessed the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the tune of ₹ 33.30,847/-. The Ld. representative of the revenue has argued that the AO has rightly assessed the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the tune of ₹ 33.30,847 which has been wrongly assessed by the CIT(A) to the tune of ₹ 8,76,302/- without applying the provision of the Section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the Act which is wrong against law and fact therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. representative of the assessee has refuted the said contentions. Before going further it is necessary to advert the finding of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provision of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act properly. It has also not been observed that the assessee has applied his own fund to earn the exempt income or not. No satisfaction was recorded to decline the claim of the assessee if any. The facts are not disputed. The application of the funds have nowhere bifurcated. Since, there is no proper application of the provision u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act, therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is not correct and is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue and restored the issue before the AO to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity being heard to the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove mentioned appeal bearing no. 1831/M/2014 but the figures are different, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. 8. All the issues are in connection with the finding of the CIT(A) in which the CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify the record in respect of loss arising from F O activities and allow the same on the business loss rather than speculative loss as an advertently claimed by him. The Ld. representative of the revenue has argued that the assessee did not raise the claim in his return, therefore, the claim of the assessee is not liable to be allowable in view of the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (2006). However, on the other hand, the Ld. representative of the assessee has refuted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advertently claimed by him. Accordingly, ground Nos, 1 and 2 allowed for statistical purposes. 9. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the AO has already allowed the claim of the assessee for the A.Y 2007-08 and 2010-11 and specifically held that the income from F O activities pertain to the head of business and not speculation. In the A.Y. 2007-08. AO has held that the as per Section 43(5) of the Act, loss in deviating trading is a business loss and therefore as per section 71 of the Act the same has to be set off against the income under any other head except salary. So the mistake was found apparent on record which is required to be rectified. Accordingly, the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the record produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
