Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1215 - ITAT KOLKATADisallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has held that when shares are kept as inventories disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not called for - HELD THAT:- This issue is covered in favour of assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd. vs JCIT [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that when the shares are not retained for earning the dividend income and the dividend income is incidental to its business of sale of shares disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not called for. In this case also we find the ld. CIT(A) has held that when the shares were kept on trading account no disallowance us 14A of the Act is called for. We find that in such circumstances there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) in view of the precedence as above. Furthermore the ld. CIT(A) has given a clear basis for the computation of disallowance confirmed by him. The Revenue has not been able to point out any infirmity in the same. Hence revenue’s claim that the ld. CIT(A) should not have held that shares held as stock in trade do not attract disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly in the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A) on this account. Disallowance under the head Penalty - Sum paid to Stock Exchange for delay in payment of the dues - HELD THAT:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an order following the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Bench. The Tribunal has clearly found that when sum have been paid to Stock Exchange for delay in payment of the dues and for various other obligations arising out of carrying on business activities, the penalty charges cannot be said to be for infringement of any law were paid to compensate for delay in payment of the dues to the Stock Exchange and for various other obligations. In these circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly we uphold the same.
|