9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 45, 32, 817/- which is bad in law and on facts. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata erred in confirming the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer for a sum of ₹ 8, 88, 000/- towards salary which is bad in law and on facts. 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer on account of consultancy charges amounting to ₹ 12, 36, 500/- which is bad in law and on facts. 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata erred in confirming the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in not granting rebate claimed u/s 88E of the I. T. Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 12, 75, 452/- which is bad in law and on facts. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and/or submit further or more ground(s) of appeal either before or at any time during the hearing of the appeal. 3. The first ground raised by the assessee relates to disallowance made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee is a beneficiary of the client code modification made by the broker, and the assessee cannot now conveniently absolve himself and shift the blame on the broker alone. In view of the above, the amount of ₹ 45, 32, 817/-, was added by the AO to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is aggrieved, and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 6. The Learned counsel for the assessee begins by pointing out that during the assessment proceedings, assessee has submitted all the contract notes, vouchers and other details to substantiate the transactions and all the transactions were settled through account payee cheques. The assessee also submitted before us the detail of the transactions with K. M. Damani Securities Pvt. Ltd. (PB 6 to 17). The assessee also submitted before us details of the transactions entered into by him with M/s Sunchan Securities Ltd and stated that these transactions were done through stock exchange. (PB 74 to 91). With help of these documents, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that assessee h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Assessment Year 2005-06, order dated 20th November, 2009, wherein it was held as follows:- "8…. . Further the fact that M/s. Ahilya Commercial Pvt. Ltd. , through whom the shares are sold, has been barred from entering into transactions w. e. f. September, 2005 whereas these transactions entered by the assessee are entered much prior to the date of suspension of the share broker i. e. on 24. 12. 2004. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve this transaction…. " In addition to this, we also rely on the judgments of jurisdictional, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Emerald Commercial Ltd. [2002] 120 Taxman 282 (Calcutta), wherein it was held that where the details of purchase and sale of shares were furnished. The payment and receipt were by account payee cheque. The identity of seller and purchaser was not in dispute. The disallowance should not be made by assessing officer merely because the assessee failed to produce the brokers for verification of the transaction. 10. We note that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record to support his findings that transaction between broker, M/s. Sunchen Securit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the details salary paid. The assessee also submitted a comparative statement of increase in salary of the staff before the Assessing Officer and stated that payments were made for services rendered by them, in their individual capacity for the business purpose. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not filed any cogent reasons for making payment to persons staying in Surat. Since the assessee's business has been found to be trading in shares with K. Damani Securities Pvt. Ltd. , ICICI Brokerage Services Ltd. and Sunchen Securities Pvt. Ltd. , therefore payments made to the above said persons in Surat was found to be irrelevant and without any reasonable cause of service rendered, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed ₹ 8, 88, 000/-. 13. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us a comparative chart of salaries paid to various persons and stated that the salary has been paid for the purpose of business and the salary expenses have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee relates to disallowance of consultancy charges amounting to ₹ 12, 36, 500/-. 17. The brief fact qua the issue are that the assessee has made payment of consultancy fee to six persons, who has special knowledge in the field of share transactions. These persons were located at Jharkhand, Mumbai and elsewhere and were helping the assessee in share transaction with their knowledge and expertise. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the special knowledge and expertise of these persons were applied in his business. Therefore, the Assessing Officer noted that the nexus of the services rendered vis-a-vis payment of consultancy fee paid, could not be established by the assessee and, therefore, he added ₹ 12, 36, 500/-, to the income of the assessee. 18. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 19. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that during the Assessment Year under consideration, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, 452/-. 23. The brief facts apropos the issue are that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order allowed the Securities Transaction Tax (STT) u/s 88E of the Act, to the tune of ₹ 48, 46, 680/- against the claim of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 61, 22, 142/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not assigned any reason that why he has not allowed the rebate claimed by the assessee to the tune of ₹ 61, 22, 142/-. The assessee noted that the Assessing Officer has not allowed rebated u/s 88E of the Act to the tune of ₹ 12, 75, 462/- (Rs. 61, 22, 142/- (minus) ₹ 48, 46, 680/-). 24. Aggrieved by the stand of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), but without success. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 25. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee has debited in his profit and loss account, the total amount of Security Transactions Tax to the tune of ₹ 61, 22, 142/-. The sum has been disallowed in the computation of inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
