Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 190 - AT - Income TaxRejection of claim of deduction u/s 24(1) - Leasing of immovable properties business activity or not – Held that:- The assessee is owner of the commercial premises i.e. DLF Square and Nestle House let out throughout the year, the assessee has always treated and shown this property as a fixed capital asset and not stock-in-trade units balance sheet, accepted by the department since inception; the tenants are deducting tax at source at the rate as specified in section 194-I of the Act and there is no change in facts and circumstances of the case as in the earlier years too the income from letting out has been returned and assessed under the head “income from house property” – identical issue has been decided in Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Atria Partners, DLF Centre [2014 (3) TMI 500 - ITAT DELHI] - there is no infirmity in the First Appellate Order accepting the claimed income as income from the house property and the claimed deduction u/s 24(1) of the Act – Decided against revenue. Loss incurred on future and option – Losses speculative in nature or not u/s 43(5)(d) – Held that:- In CIT Versus Nasa Finelease P. Ltd. [2013 (9) TMI 733 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it has been rightly held that the transactions in derivatives on recognized stock exchange not as deemed speculative - the transaction carried in future and options (derivatives) are outside the purview of “speculation loss” in terms of amendment made by the Finance Act, 2005 with effect from 1.4.2006 by inserting Clause (d) to the proviso to subsection (5) of Section 43 of the Act defining the meaning of “Speculation Transaction” - the dealing in derivatives was a regular business and it is not that the assessee has been incurring losses always, as in the immediately succeeding AY 2009-10, the assessee has earned a profit on trading in future and options (derivatives) - Decided against revenue. Claim of expenses u/s 57(iii) – Expenses made wholly & exclusively for the purpose of earning such income or not – Held that:- CIT(A) was rightly of the view that the assessee has not been able to justify the claim of the entire expenses - considering the nature of expenditure being office maintenance, salary paid, conveyance, legal and professional expenses found it unjustifiable to assume that no expenses whatsoever has been incurred for earning an income of over ₹ 80,00,000/- from other sources – thus, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld – Decided against revenue.
|