TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad as under : 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in directing to assess the Rent Service Charges as income under the head Business or Profession against income from house property taxed by A.O. 2. The LD. CIT (A) further erred in directing to allow maintenance expenses of ₹ 19,500/- disallowed by the A.O. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) is justified in rejecting the A.O. s working of expenses u/s. 14A as per rule 8D by observing that jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. has decided this issue that rule 8D will be applicable only from A.Y. 2008-09 onwards. 3.1 The decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id sum as income from house property he allowed the assessee deduction as per the provisions of section 24a (@ 30%) of the Act. Assessee had claimed ₹ 19,500/- as repair and maintenance expenses. AO disallowed the claim holding that after allowing the deduction u/s.24a of the Act, no further deduction was allowable. 3. On appeal, First Appellate Authority (FAA) deleted the addition made by the AO. He held that, like earlier AY, income from the property-in-question should be assessed as business-income, that assessee was entitled to claim, made by it for the repair and maintenance expenses, amounting to ₹ 19,500/-. 4. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO. He relied upon the orders of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de u/s.14A of the Act for expenditure attributable to the exempted income by applying Rule 8 D of Income-tax Rules,1962. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee had claimed Dividend income of ₹ 25.38 lakhs as exempt income u/s.10(34) of the Act. Assessee was asked to furnish details of expenses relatable to these exempt incomes vis- -vis provisions of section 14A of the Act. AO was not satisfied with the explanation filed by the assessee in this regard. He made an addition of ₹ 5.58 lakhs to the total income of the income as per the provisions of Sec.14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D. Assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering the submission of the assessee and the order of the AO he held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nes. He held that the expenditure could not be allowed, that assessee is not engaged in the business of dealing in shares, that claim of the assessee had to rejected as per the provisions of section 40A and 112. Assessee-company preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering the submissions of the assessee he held that the appellant s income arose from the share-transaction, that there was no provision for allowing PMF under the head capital gains. 8.1. Before us, AR submitted that issue was covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of A Bench of Pune ITAT delivered on 25.07.2012 in the case of KRA Holding Trading Pvt. Ltd. DR submitted that matter was decided against the assesee and in favour of the Revenue by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee; had been considered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant (275 ITR 231).While deciding the case of Roshanbabu Hon ble Bombay High Court took notice of the decisions delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of RM Arunachalam (227 ITR 222) VS MR Jagadishchandran (227 ITR 240) and Attili N. Rao (252ITR280). After considering the above judgments Hon ble jurisdictional High Court held that the decision rendered earlier in the case of Shakuntalal Kantilal (supra) was no more a good law in the light of the said decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court rendered subsequently. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Harlalka (supra) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
