9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue not to challenge the Tribunal's judgment in earlier years in respect of this very assessee, can be seemed as conscious decision of accepting the proposition involved. This question is, therefore, not entertained. Addition on account of replacement of shares by the assessee - whether such loss had to be allowed as business expenditure? - Held that:- The assessee was not under the legal obligation to make the payment in absence of any specific contract or a Court order to maintain its reputation in the market and cordial business relations with the customers. The Supreme Court in case of Nainital Bank [1966 (9) TMI 46 - SUPREME COURT] in similar circumstances, had held that such a claim was allowable under Section 10(2)(xv) of the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd, 262 ITR 55 ignoring that the facts of that case were entirely different from the present case, which have been ignored while deciding the issue. Tribunal failed to follow the ratio in the case of CIT Vs. Jansampark Advertising Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 56 taxmann.com 286 (Delhi) dated 11th March, 2015? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in concurring with the decision of CIT(A) while deleting the addition made by the AO on account of replacement of shares by the assessee to EMGF amounting to ₹ 3,50,00,000/on the basis of decision in the case of CIT Vs. Nainital Bank (1966) 62 ITR 638 (SC) ign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have been on the ground of low tax effect. Under the circumstances, the decisions of the Revenue not to challenge the Tribunal's judgment in earlier years in respect of this very assessee, can be seemed as conscious decision of accepting the proposition involved. This question is, therefore, not entertained. 4. Question no.(ii) arises in following background. The respondent assessee had claimed a loss of ₹ 3.50 crores. The assessee pointed out that as a mediator it holds securities, collect dividends, obtain deliveries, ensures transfer in the name of the client and delivers the securities when the same are sold by the clients. During the course of such business proceedings one client namely, Capital Emerging Growth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard learned Counsel for the parties on this issue as noted, strictly speaking, the assessee was not under the legal obligation to make the payment in absence of any specific contract or a Court order to maintain its reputation in the market and cordial business relations with the customers. The Supreme Court in case of Nainital Bank (supra) in similar circumstances, had held that such a claim was allowable under Section 10(2) (xv) of the Indian Income Tax Act,1922. In such case, large quantity of jewellery pledged with the respondent assessee bank by its constituents and currency notes were stolen by dacoits from the premises of the bank. In regard to the loss of jewellery, the bank settled the claim and claimed a loss as a busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
