9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 2009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them. The contention of the Ld A.R could not be controverted by the Ld D.R. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of claim. Accordingly we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of ₹ 71.38 lakhs, referred above. Claim of depreciation on Electrical fittings - @ 25% OR @ 15% - HELD THAT:- This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the co-ordinate bench in AY 2004-05 [ 2013 (9) TMI 262 - ITAT MUMBAI] , wherein the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered in assessee s own case 2013 (9) TMI 561 - ITAT MUMBAI] relating to AY 2005-06. The Tribunal has noticed that the electrical fittings have already entered into the blo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll not apply to this year as per the decision rendered in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd [ 2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . Accordingly the disallowance has to be made on reasonable basis. Accordingly we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to compute disallowance u/s 14A of the Act on reasonable basis. Charging of interest u/s 234D - HELD THAT:- The assessment has been completed in the present case on 12-12-2005, i.e. after 01-06-2003. As per the Explanation 2 to sec.234D, the provisions of sec. 234D shall also apply to an assessment year commencing before the 1st day of June, 2003 if the proceedings in respect of such assessment year is completed after the said date. Hence the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the same by holding that the amount claimed as bad debts was not offered as income in the earlier years as stipulated in sec. 36(2) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the bad debts claim pertained to the amount due to the assessee on account of purchase transactions of shares of customers, which was held to be allowable as deduction by Mumbai Special bench in the case of Shreyas Morarkhia (ITA No.3374/M/2004 dated 10-01-2010). The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the bad debts claim of the assessee included amount due from sister concerns amounting to ₹ 71.38 lakhs. Accordingly he confirmed the disallowance of bad debts of claim of 7.38 lakhs relating to sister concerns and deleted the balance addition. Both the parties are aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regular business transactions. The Ld A.R submitted that the sister concerns, being franchisees of the assessee s share broking business, could not repay the debts due to heavy losses incurred by them. The contention of the Ld A.R could not be controverted by the Ld D.R. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of claim. Accordingly we modify the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim of ₹ 71.38 lakhs, referred above. 5. The next issue relates to the disallowance of claim of ₹ 11,469/-. The Ld A.R did not press the same in view of the smallness of the amount. Accordingly we dismiss the ground relating to the same. 6. The next issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons beyond its control, i.e., because of the ban imposed on its trading by SEBI and the order so passed by SEBI has been challenged by the assessee. Following the order passed by the Tribunal in AY 2005-06 (which is an order pertaining to the year subsequent to AY 2003-04), we direct the AO to allow carry forward of business loss and unabsorbed depreciation. 8. The next issue relates to the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee had received dividend income of ₹ 83,314/-. The Assessee did not make any disallowance and the AO also did not examine the same. The Ld CIT(A) directed the AO to compute the disallowance by following Rule 8D of the IT Rules. 9. Since the year under consideration falls prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
