Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1599 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Assessee’s contention that it held the shares as stock-in-trade and dividend income was only the bye-product of the trading activity and as such, there is no relation between the expenditure by way of interest and exempted income and that all the quoted shares have been shown as stock-in-trade and unquoted shares as investment because there is no ready market available for unquoted shares - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in judgment cited as Pr.CIT vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017 (2) TMI 125 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] set this issue at rest by holding that when assessee has not held securities to earn dividend or interest but traded in them and dividend or interest accruing thereon was only a bye-product thereon or an incidental benefit arising thereof, the same would not be subjected to provisions of section 14A of the Act. In case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] also held that to attract section 14A, there should have been actual receipt of income which is not includible in total income and section 14A will not apply where no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year. Both the judgments relied upon by the assessee are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue is required to be decided afresh by the AO by keeping in mind that there is a distinction between stock-in-trade and investment. In case, motive behind sale and purchase of shares is to earn profit then the same cannot be treated as trading profit and when the object is to derive income by way of dividend then the profit would have been accrued from the investment as has been clarified by Circular No.18 dated 02.11.2015. Ground decided in favour of the assessee for statistical purposes. Unsecured cash credit claimed as unsecured loan availed - CIT (A) admitted the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A - HELD THAT:- It is settled principle of law that the ld. CIT (A) has coterminus powers to conduct a discreet enquiry as to the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions. From the documents brought on record in the form of confirmation of account; copy of bank statement of M/s. Udgam Commercial (P) Ltd. (lender); copy of bank statement of the appellant company reflecting the transactions; copy of income tax return filed by the lender for the AY 2009-10; copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association of the lender; and copy of the audited financials of the lender for the year ended 31st March 2009, the ld. CIT (A) made himself satisfied that the assessee has duly established the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. When the assessee has brought on record all the documents necessary to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction and the AO has not preferred to file any comment, we find no scope to interfere into the findings returned by ld. CIT (A). Moreover, perusal of the assessment order also goes to prove that the AO has not even preferred to summon the parties to make complete enquiry so as to establish the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|