TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait ( 2010 (8) TMI 578 - ITAT, MUMBAI ). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.( 2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ) has considered such losses as allowable and not of contingent in nature. We find that the observations of the AO that the assessee has never accounted for the gains on such transactions is totally misplaced and against the facts of the case. As we find in the P&L Account at page 49 of the paper book when the assessee had gains of ₹ 25.57 lacs the assessee has included the same in its income. Considering the facts in totality and in the light of judicial decisions, we set aside the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition - Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even then investment income from which is not exempt. We have given thoughtful consideration to these submissions of the Ld. Counsel. In our considered opinion this issue needs to be verified at the assessment stage. We accordingly, restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to consider this issue afresh in the light of the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D keeping in mind that investment from which the income is taxable should not be included in computation of the average investment. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I.T.A. No. 618/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 18-2-2015 - SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri N.C. Jain For The Respondent : Shri Kishan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. [2009] 179 Taxman 326 (SC). After considering the facts and the submissions, the AO observed that the assessee has recognized only the loss and not the profit. According to the AO the assessee has not been consistent and definite in making entries in the account books in respect of losses and gain and accordingly denied the claim of deduction of ₹ 18,29,87,255/-. 2.1 Proceeding further, the AO noticed that the assessee has paid lease line and transaction charges to Bombay Stock Exchange. The total amount paid was at ₹ 94,01,055/-. The AO was of the firm belief that assessee ought to have deducted tax under section 194J of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1883/Mum/2004, ABN Ambro Securities in ITA No.7073/Mum/2006. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further stated that the liability is not contingent liability. Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Ld. Counsel further stated that the reliance on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Ruia (supra) is totally misplaced as the Swap agreement is not a derivative contract and cannot be termed as commodity for the purpose of section 43(5) of the Act. 5. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the relevant docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue except that the transaction charges have been considered to be subject to TDS by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd in Income Tax appeal No.3111 of 2009. However, we find that the Hon ble High Court has observed that section 194J was inserted w.e.f. 1/7/1995 and till assessment year 2005-06 both the Revenue and the assessee proceeded on the footing that section 194J was not applicable to the payment of transaction charges and accordingly during the period from 1995 to 2005 neither the assessee has deducted tax at source nor the Revenue has raised any objection. The Hon ble High Court further observed that in these circumstances if both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
