9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary to law, facts and circumstances of the case to the extent prejudicial to the interests of the appellant and is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction. 3. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing a sum of Rs. 8,58,818i- u/s.14A r.w Rule 8D. 4. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 14A read with rule BD are not invocable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the business of stock broking, portfolio management, corporate advisory services, custodial services and dealing in shares, securities, derivatives, etc., filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31.03.2015 admitting total income of Rs. 2,31,79,286/-. The assessment for impugned assessment year was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act') on 24.02.2016 and determined total income at Rs. 2,47,88,104/- after making addition towards disallowance u/s.14A of the Act at Rs. 8,58,818/- and addition towards disallowance of membership fee paid to MCX Exchange Limited at Rs. 7,50,000/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) but could not succeed. The ld.CIT(A) fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disallowance of other expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii), only those investment from which exempt income eared to be considered for disallowance of expenses. If such investment is considered then disallowance works out to be Rs. 600/- instead of Rs. 8,58,818/-. Therefore, if at all any disallowance is required then it may be restricted to the extent of Rs. 600/- as against total disallowance computed by the AO at Rs. 8,58,818/-. 4.2 The ld.DR on the other hand supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the AO as well as the ld.CIT(A) have brought out clear facts to the effect that the assessee has invested in dividend yielding investments but could not made any disallowance towards expenses relatable to such exempt income. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nished by the assessee in light of schedule of financial charges appeared in the financial statement and find that interest expenditure incurred for the year are relatable to specific loans borrowed for acquisition of assets, interest paid on Client Margin Money and interest paid u/s.234C of the Act. Further, there is no specific interest has been paid on any loan which has been used for investing in dividend yielding shares or securities. Therefore, unless the AO makes out a case that interest bearing funds have been used for making investments in shares and securities which yield income, no interest disallowance can be made under Rule 8D(2) of the IT Rules, 1962. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete additions made towards disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it is in the nature of capital expenditure and it gives enduring benefit to the assessee. However, allowed depreciation in terms of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act being a business right, falls within the meaning of intangible asset by virtue of Explanation 3 to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 5.2 The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that membership fee paid to MCX Exchange Ltd., is a revenue expenditure which does not give enduring benefit to the assessee. The payment was made for use of facilities and not for acquisition of any right and accordingly, no asset of enduring benefit was acquired by the assessee. In this regard, the ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Venkasubramaniam vs. CIT [2007] 291 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly held that membership card would constitute an intangible asset and the assessee could be entitled to depreciation on the cost of membership card u/s.32(1)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in disallowance of deduction claimed towards membership fee paid to MCX Exchange Ltd., as revenue expenditure. Insofar as, the case law relied upon by the ld.AR for the assessee in the case of S. Venkatasubramaniam vs. CIT, supra of Hon'ble Madras High Court, we find that although the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that membership fees paid to any stock exchange is revenue expenditure, but because the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
