TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing relief to the assessee on this issue Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- Both the sides have agreed that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of REI Agro Ltd.[2013 (9) TMI 156 - ITAT KOLKATA] - Revenue appeal dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 1339/Kol/2015 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2018 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM For The Revenue : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT For The Assessee : Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA appearing ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) 4, Kolkata dated 31.08.2015. 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee is a company which is engaged in the business of dealing in shares and securities on its own as well as in the capacity as a broker. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 28.09.2011 declaring a loss of ₹ 50,98,090/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee company after deducting STT of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was claimed to be exempt from tax. Since no disallowance on account of expenditure incurred in relation to the earning of the said exempt income was offered by the assessee, the A.O. applied Rule 8D to work out such expenditure at ₹ 2,77,821/- and made a disallowance to that extent under section 14A. 5. The order of the A.O. passed u/s 143(3) invoking Explanation to Section 73 to treat the loss from share trading as speculation loss and making disallowance under section 14A was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the claim of the assessee that Explanation to Section 73 had no application in its case and accordingly directed the A.O. to treat the loss suffered by the assessee company in share trading as normal business loss for the following reasons given in paragraph no 4.4 and 4.5 of his impugned order: 4.4 The assessment order and the submission of the appellant along with supporting documents have been examined. The rival contentions on the issue are considered as presented in the foregoing paras. Now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find much force in the submission of the appellant that income under all other head was more than the income under the head business. I have observed that the A.O. rejected the said contention of the appellant by not accepting the revised computation of income and treating the interest income FD as business income. Now, following two questions arise here a. Whether the A.O. was justified in not accepting the revised computation income? b. Whether the A.O. was justified in treating the interest income as business income? In respect of question no. (a), I have observed that the A.O. did not accept the revised computation relying on the judgment of Goetz (India) Ltd. (supra) where it was held that no new claim can be made without filing any valid revised return. On this issue reference may be made in the case of CIT s Natraj Stationery Products (P) Ltd. 312 ITR 22 where the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that the assessee was not required to file revised ROI since it has not made any new claim and Goetze India s case was not applicable in such a situation. I find that in the instant case, the appellant did not make any new claim by filing the revised computation by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ₹ 2,77,821/- made by the A.O. u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D s restricted to ₹ 8,332/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal on the following ground: On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether CIT(A) 4 was right in deleting the addition made u/s 73 14A of the IT Act, 1961 without considering the facts and circumstances stated in the assessment order 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. Although the learned DR has contended that the contentions raised by the assessee company in support of its case on the issue of applicability of Explanation to Section 73 were rejected by the A.O. by giving cogent reasons which the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, it is observed that the decision given by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order giving relief to the assessee on this issue is duly supported by various judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. In one of such decisions rendered in the case of DCIT vs MPC Securities Ltd. (ITA No. 2723/Kol/2013 dated July 8, 2016) cited by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
