9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1066X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .r. 8D, as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 1425 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]. Also see CHEMINVEST LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - ITA No. 1984/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-12-2018 - Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member And Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, appeared For The Revenue : Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT Sr. D/R. ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 20, Kolkata, (ld. CIT(A)) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, we hold as follows:- 3. Ground No.1, is against the deletion of disallowance of loss made by the assessee on account of derivative trading. The Assessing Officer has dealt with the issue at para 2.2. of his order. The basis of disallowance was that the assessee was not a regular trader in derivatives market and that he only engaged in such trades on 16 occasions during the current year and except on one occasion had incurred huge loss. The transactions on which profit was derived was accepted as genuine by the Assessing Officer. He further held that the margins of gain and loss in the derivative market is very small and the brokerage charges would be very high. The sum and substance of his finding was that the transactions were pre-me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... book is running in pages 1 to 34. Before us the ld. AR submitted that the order of the AO is silent about the date from which the broker was expelled. There is no law that the off market transactions should be informed to stock exchange. All the transactions are duly recorded in the accounts of both the parties and supported with the account payee cheques. The ld. AR has also submitted the IT return, ledger copy, letter to AO land PAN of the broker in support of his claim which is placed at pages 72 to 75 of the paper book. The ld. AR produced the purchase sale contracts notes which are placed on pages 28 to 69 of the paper book. The purchase and sales registers were also submitted in the form of the paper book which is placed at pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been shown to us which would negate the Tribunal's finding that off market transactions are not prohibited. As regards veracity of the transactions, the Tribunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That being the position, Tribunal having analysed the set of facts in coming to its finding, we do not think there is any scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 4.1. The Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Kamla Prasad Kajaria (HUF) vs. ITO; ITA No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee company through the said broker were bogus. As matter of fact, a perusal of the order of the A.O. shows that enquiry was directly made by him from MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. by issuing the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act in order to verify the transactions entered into by the assessee through M/s. Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and in reply to the said notice, MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. had not only confirmed the transactions but had also furnished the required information along with a CD containing details of all transactions made by the assessee during the year under consideration through broker Marigold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. As found by the A.O. on verification of the said details, total transactions involving sales of ₹ 15,19,22,392/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, therefore, delete the said disallowance and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the Ground No. 1 of the revenue. 6. Ground No. 2 3, are against the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 6.1. Admittedly, there is no exempt income earned during the year and hence not disallowance can be made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D, as held by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashika Global Securities Ltd. ITAT 100 of 2014, GA 2122 of 2014, judgment dt. 11/06/2018. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-IV [2015] 378 ITR 33 (Delhi) has laid down a similar proposition of law. The ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
