9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the disallowance of Rs.9,48,785/- being fees paid under Portfolio Management Scheme(PMS) as not deductible expenditure u/s 48(1) of the I.T. Act against Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) computed by the Appellant during the year under consideration. The Appellant submits that PMS fees of Rs.9,48,785/- is directly related to purchase and sale of shares and securities and hence the same ought to have been allowed as deductible expenditure while computing STCG. 2. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.9,49,005/- (Rs. 751,579 + Rs. 197,426/-) and society charges of Rs.1,62,567/claimed by the Appellant on residential premises used by the staff members of the Appellant for its business purpose. You ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expenditure claimed. While doing so, he followed his reasoning for assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. Though, the assessee challenged the disallowance before the first appellate authority, but it was unsuccessful. 3. Learned Counsel for the assessee fairly submitted that the issue in dispute has been decided against the assessee by order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2008-09. In this context, he referred to Para-6 and 7 of the order passed in ITA no.7282/Mum./2011 dated 17th June 2015. 4. Learned Departmental Representative also submitted that issue is decided against the assessee. 5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noticed that this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se for the assessment year 2008-09 and the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for considering afresh. In this context, he drew our attention to Para-22 of the order passed by the Tribunal as referred to above. The learned Departmental Representative also agreed that the matter should be restored back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms of direction of the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09. 10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is observed, while deciding similar issue in assessee's own case in ITA no.7282/Mum./2011, dated 17th June 2015, for assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal held as under:- "22. The issue in ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the matter needs to be looked into by the AO, in order to verify claims of the assessee. Following the principles of natural justice we may it fit deem to the restore this issue back to the file of the AO to verify the names of the employees to whom the premises have been allotted and in whose hands the perk has been offered. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. The ground of appeal no. 4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes." 11. As there is no material difference in facts, respectfully following the aforesaid view of the Tribunal, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with similar direction. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
