9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to its activity of carrying on investment. The provision of Sec. 48 of the Act requires that the deduction will be available for those expenses incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with the transfer of capital assets. Above expenses had not incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer as capital asset. No reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A). This ground of assessee is dismissed. Not giving direction to AO for adjusting the STCG - whether the assessee can make a fresh claim during the assessment proceedings which was not claimed in the return of income? - Held that:- The law is fairly settled by the judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME Court] has prohibited the Assessing Officer to entertain any claim / deduction of the assessee otherwise than claimed in the return / revised return. This restriction was not imposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of appellant authority. It can be concluded that the appellant authority are very much entitled to admit the fresh claim of the assessee which was not made in the income tax return. We direct the AO to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee during the assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its profit and loss account but failed to furnish the details to show that the same was offered to tax in the earlier year. Therefore, AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of assessee. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the order of AO by observing as under:- I have gone through the submission of the AR. This is quite general in nature. It is a fact that after 01.04.1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that debts had become bad. But onus is on the assessee to give basic details. No details have been given during assessment stage as sit is evident from the assessment ordered. Even before me, a general reply has been filed. Hence, appeal of the assessee is dismissed on this ground. Being aggrieved by this order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee came in second appeal before us. 5. Ld. AR for the assessee filed paper book which is running pages 1 to 19 and submitted that necessary details for the bad debt written off and the corresponding income shown in the earlier year were filed before AO during assessment proceedings. Ld. AR in support of assessee s claim filed copy of ledger and details of sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses have not been incurred in connection with the transfer of capital assets. Therefore, the same cannot be allowed as deduction under section 48 of the Act. Accordingly, AO disallowed the same and added to the total income of assessee. 8. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that expenses incurred by it are statutory in nature and these were incurred as per Security Exchange Board of India guidelines. Therefore, same should be allowed while computing the income under the head STCG. The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the contention of assessee and confirmed the order of AO by observing as under:- I have gone through the decision of Hon'ble Pune Tribunal and two decisions of Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal. The tax laws provide that capital gain on transfer of an asset is to be computed by deducting expenses incurred in connection with transfer of the asset. Only cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the asset have to be allowed. No other type of expenditure is allowable as deduction. The portfolio management fees are not a cost for improvement of the asset as there is no improvement in the asset on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l fund profit and loss under the head Short term profit and loss Though same is to be classified under the head Long Term . The assessee during the assessment proceedings, brought this mistake to the notice of AO vide letter dated 8.1.2013 but AO failed to consider the same. The above mistake was also brought to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) during appellate stage who rejected the same after having reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). Ld. AR further submitted that the impugned issue is arising from the details available before AO and no fresh documentary evidence is required for the adjudication of the same. Accordingly, Ld AR before us prayed that a direction should be made to AO for rectification of the mistake committed by the assessee. On the other hand, Ld. DR raised no objection if the direction is be issued to AO to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. 13. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and case law relied upon by the assessee. Now the limited issue before us arises for our adjudication so as to whether the assessee can make a fresh claim during the assessment proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
