Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 751 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance of VSAT and Lease line charges u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in the case of The CIT Vs. M/s The Stock and Bond Trading Company (2011 (10) TMI 172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein followed case of “The Income tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 Vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd [2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] to hold that the there is no requirement to deduct tax at source from the payments made to NSE/BSE towards VSAT charges and Lease line charges. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance of claim of set off of Loss arising in Cash segment against the profits in Future & Options - Held that:- Explanation to sec. 73 can be applied after computing the Gross total income, meaning thereby, the same shall not override the proviso to sec. 43(5) of the Act. Hence, as per the decision of Kolkatta bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Arena Textiles & Industries Ltd (supra), the loss from cash segment can be set off against the profit from derivatives. Thus, after computing the Gross Total Income in the above said manner, the application of provisions of Explanation to sec.73 is required to be examined. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter of applicability of Explanation to sec. 73 to the file of the AO with the direction to examine this matter afresh in the light of discussions made supra. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Disallowance of Mark to market loss on derivatives - Held that:- As relying on DCIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra Investment Ltd [2013 (7) TMI 355 - ITAT MUMBAI], Shri Ramesh Kumar Damai Vs. Addl CIT (ITA No.1443/Mum/2009) and Edelweiss Capital Ltd Vs. ITO 2012 (10) TMI 223 - ITAT, MUMBAI] it is held at the Tribunal is consistently holding that the Market to Market loss on derivatives cannot be treated as a contingent liability and hence the same is to be allowed as deduction. - Decided in favour of assessee. Disallowance made u/s 14A - Held that:- AO has disallowed a sum of ₹ 63,848/- in respect of Administrative expenses by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. The decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) would cover only the interest disallowance that is required to be made u/s 14A of the Act. Before tax authorities, it appears that the assessee did not make any specific submissions against disallowance made u/s Rule 8D(2)(iii) relating to administrative expenses. Hence, we confirm the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against assessee.
|