Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Kisan Ratilal Choksey Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. Versus Add. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 4 (3) , Mumbai

2015 (6) TMI 278 - ITAT MUMBAI

Disallowance of depreciation on motor car - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for assessment year 2005-06 registration under Motor Vehicle Act is not an essential requirement for acquiring ownership of the motor vehicle and that an assessee purchasing a motor vehicle for valuable consideration and using the same for his business cannot be denied benefit of depreciation on the ground that the vehicle was not registered under Motor Vehicle Act. See USHA RECTI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e on the transaction. Since the brokerage and value of shares both form a component part of the debt, the requirements of section 36(2)(i) are fulfilled where a part thereof is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. Further, it is not disputed that the assessee has written off the debts as bad in its books of account. Under these set of facts, we notice that the assessee complied with the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) as well as 36(2)(i). Hence, by following the decision .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO with a direction to examine the same in the light of the decision of ITAT in the case of AMWAY India Enterprises (2008 (2) TMI 454 - ITAT DELHI-C ) by duly considering the break-up details, information and explanation that may be furnished by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Disallowance of penalty paid to the Stock Exchange for violation of its bye-laws - CIT(A) allowed claim - Held .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce to be made u/s 14A of the Act should be computed in a reasonable manner. We have earlier noticed that the AO has applied the provisions of Rule 8D for computing the disallowance. Hence, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination. See case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

Disallowance of Bombay Stock Exchange Card Amortization expenditure - Held that:- this is the last year of claim, which means that the assessee had made simila .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

come Tax Act. Hence, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance made by AO. - Decided against assessee.

Sale of shares - Short Term Capital Gains OR business income - Held that:- Both the tax authorities have given findings that the assessee has earned above said amount on purchase and sale of shares on the very same date. It is well established principle that the intention of a person at the time of purchase of shares is one of the most import .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

um/2011 - Dated:- 5-6-2015 - S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN AND AMIT SHUKLA, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Nishit Gandhi For the Respondent : Shri Asghar Zain V P ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) These cross-appeals are directed against the order dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Ld.CIT (A)-11, Mumbai and they relate to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Share Broking and Other Related Financial Services. The assessment for the year u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, but disclosed the same as part of its assets. Accordingly, it claimed depreciation on the vehicles. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation on the reasoning that the vehicles were not in the name of Assessee Company. The ld. CIT(A), however, allowed the deprecation by following the decision dated 30.9.2010 rendered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in ITA nos. 4917/Mum/2009 and 4821/Mum/2009 relating to assessment year 2006-07. 3.1 The assessee has furnished a copy of the order passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e case of CIT V/s Dilip Singh Sardarsingh Bagga reported in 201 ITR 995 (Bom), wherein it has been held that the registration under Motor Vehicle Act is not an essential requirement for acquiring ownership of the motor vehicle and that an assessee purchasing a motor vehicle for valuable consideration and using the same for his business cannot be denied benefit of depreciation on the ground that the vehicle was not registered under Motor Vehicle Act. 3.2 In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) has on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT V/s SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA [2010] 40 SOT 432 (ITAT[Mum]).The ld.CIT(A) also noticed that an identical disallowance made in the assessment year 2006-07 has been deleted by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. 4.1 At the time of hearing, the ld.AR pointed out that the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (supra) has since been approved by the Hon ble Bomba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he assessee. Further, it is not disputed that the assessee has written off the debts as bad in its books of account. Under these set of facts, we notice that the assessee complied with the provisions of sections 36(1)(vii) as well as 36(2)(i). Hence, by following the decision of Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (supra), we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue. 5 The next issue contested by the revenue relates to claim of computer and software devel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IT(A) disallowed the claim of ₹ 5,08,509/- referred above. However, the ld.CIT(A) took the view that the assessee has been consistently claiming the software web development expenditure at higher level over the years and accordingly disallowed 20% of the expenses, holding the same as excessive and unreasonable and allowed the remaining amount. 5.1 The ld. DR submitted that the software development expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure and hence the ld.CIT(A) was not justifie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Tribunal in the case of AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES V/s DCIT [2008] 111 ITD 112 (ITAT)(SB)[Del]). Since the break-up details of the expenditure are not available on record, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of AO with a direction to examine the same in the light of the decision of ITAT in the case of AMWAY India Enterprises (supra) by duly considering .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty paid on contravention of bye-laws of the Stock Exchange. Accordingly, he allowed the claim of the assessee. The ld. AR pointed out that the coITA ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has considered an identical issue in assessee s own case for the assessment year 2005-06 passed in ITA NO.4347/Mum/2009 and 4033/Mum/2009 dated 4.6.2010. We notice that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has deleted an identical disallowance made in the assessment year 2005-06 by following the decision rendered in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Rule 8D are not applicable to the year under consideration in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd (234 CTR 1)(Bom), yet he held that disallowance of ₹ 4,65,945/- made by AO is reasonable. The ld.AR pointed out that the AO has made an identical disallowance in the assessment year 2006-07 and the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh. Since the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd(supra). 8. The next issue contested by the assessee relates to partial confirmation of web and software development expenses. While dealing with the appeal filed by the Revenue, we have restored back this issue to the file of AO for fresh consideration. Hence, the assessee is directed to submit its contentions before the AO in the set aside proceedings. The AO is directed to take appropriate decision after hearing the assessee. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Investment in Balance-sheet and remaining amount paid for acquisition of card i.e. ₹ 64,25,000 was amortized by the assessee in 10 equal installment beginning from the financial year 1997-98. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee by holding that depreciation on BSE card is not allowed by department. 9.1 The ld. CIT(A) noticed that the assessee company was entitled to claim depreciation on BSE card up to 19.8.2005 only. He further held that the assessee has also failed to show that s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed the value of BSE card at ₹ 65.75 lakhs. What is claimed now relates to the amortization of the excess payment. Hence, in our view, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court, referred supra, is not applicable to this claim. We notice that this is the last year of claim, which means that the assessee had made similar amortisation claim in earlier years also. However, it was not shown to us by either parties that the said claim was allowed or disallowed in earlier years. Be that as it may, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version