Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 1111 - AT - Income TaxValidity of the notice issued u/s 153A - Held that:- The additions made by the AO in the absence of any incriminating material are not sustainable. Accordingly, additions are deleted and the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. Addition u/s 68 on account of unexplained gifts received - Held that:- Disallowance made u/s 68 is uncalled for as the same is beyond the scope of section 153A / 153C of the Act. No incriminating material in support of the additions made u/s 68 of the Act was brought to our notice by the Revenue. Therefore, the addition made u/s 68 of the Act is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The disallowance made u/s 14A is uncalled for as the same is beyond the scope of section 153A / 153C of the Act. No incriminating material was brought to our notice by the Revenue in support of the additions made u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, the addition made u/s 14A of the Act is deleted - Decided in favour of assessee Additions made on account of sale proceeds on shares - Held that:- Similar issue connected to the sale proceeds on shares of Database Finance Ltd came up for discussion and adjudication in the case of Nikki Agarwal (2014 (2) TMI 937 - ITAT MUMBAI ) wherein we held that there is no case of addition in that case. Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- t is a fact that the relevant assessment years i.e., 2006-07 and 2007-08 under consideration are outside the scope of provisions of Rule 8D. The said provisions cannot be treated as applicable to the A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 under consideration when the same is precluded by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, reported in (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Thus we restrict the disallowance to 5% of the total exempt income.
|