9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assesse and records of M/s. SSPL showing the 1) Order No. 2) Date & 3) Trading Time etc. The CIT-A examined the books of account, ledger account of assesse and records of broker of M/s. SSPL and found satisfied that the transaction in respect of share i. e order date, trading and time etc were recorded. - No additions - Decided against the revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 11,94,522/-. The assesse contended that the dividend earned on the stock, which was held as stock-in-trade and as such no disallowance of expenditure can be made. The CIT-A held that no such disallowance can be made by invoking Rule 8D(2) in respect of shares held as stock-in-trade and as such deleted the addition made on this issue by the AO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max opp Investment Ltd reported in (2018) 91 taxman.154(SC) held the provisions of section 14A of the Act would be applicable even when the shares are held as stock-in-trade. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal ( ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata) in the case of M/s. Maruti Traders & Investors, ITA No. 2204/Kol/2016 for the A.Y 2012- 13, order dt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Rules for the purpose of making disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. It is incumbent on the part of the ld.AO to verify the accounts of the assesse and ascertain the amount of disallowance from the said accounts u/s. 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play, to remand this issue to the file of ld.AO for de novo adjudication. Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose." 7. In view of above, the impugned order of the CIT-A on this issue is set aside and remand the matter to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication for computing the expenditure of disallowance in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of supra for the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 69,53,809/- to the total income of asssessee. 10. In the first appellate proceedings, it was contended that the assesse is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange. In Future & Option ( F & O ) transaction in the derivatives segment, are carried out at National Stock Exchange (NSE). The said transactions have been duly reflected in the financial account in the books of broker of M/s. SSPL. Due to off market transaction, the assesse did not enter into the transaction and the broker of SSPL did not inform the NSE and in support of this, filed ledger account of assesse and records of M/s. SSPL showing the 1) Order No. 2) Date & 3) Trading Time etc. 11. The CIT-A considering the above and by placing his reliance on the order dt. 15-12-2005 of ITAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 69 of the Act. The CIT-A confirmed the addition made on account of purchase and sale of shares as bogus as viewed by the AO. The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares were entered into the books of assesse and also reflected in the balance sheet and declared the same in the return of income. Further, purchase and sale of shares were outside the floor of stock exchange is not an unlawful activity and off market transactions are not illegal and as such deleted the addition made by the AO as confirmed by the CIT-A. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay confirmed the view of Tribunal in the case of supra and held as under:- "4. The Assessing Officer has held that neither the purchase nor sale of shares were genuine and that the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd held that the sale transaction was genuine. 7. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of ₹ 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted." 14. Considering the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of supra, we find that in the present case the CIT-A examined the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
