GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 818 - ITAT MUMBAI

2016 (8) TMI 818 - ITAT MUMBAI - TMI - Denial of deduction u/s 80G - assessee has claimed deduction on the ground that it had made payment as donation to South Indian Education Society (SIES) - AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the basis of report dated 22.12.2010 of the investigation wing of the department, which revealed that during the relevant period SIES used to issue bogus certificates u/s 80G - Held that:- Since SIES had disclosed the said modus operandi during investigation .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ee. - Since SIES has not specifically stated that the amount received from the assessee was returned back as per the aforesaid modus operandi, it cannot be held conclusively that either no donation was paid by the assessee to SIES or the amount paid by the assessee was returned by SIES. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the disallowance in question made by the AO based on wrong assumption. We, therefore set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and allow this ground of appeal of 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

ar 2008-09 declaring the total income of ₹ 10,28,48,393/-. However, vide assessment order dated 28.12.2010, passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) the AO assessed the total income at ₹ 10,83,43,060/- after making disallowance of ₹ 7,44,643/-u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules and disallowance of ₹ 47,50,000/- under section 80G of the Act. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed both the disallowances. 3. The assessee is in appeal before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

le 8D. 4. The disallowance of u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D requires to be deleted. II. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF ₹ 47,50,000/- U/S 80G:- 1). The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the denial of deduction of ₹ 47,50,000 u/s 80G claimed by the appellant. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed denial of the deduction u/s 80G of ₹ 47,50,000/- 3. Deduction of ₹ 47,50,000/- u/s 80G requires to be allowed to the appellant. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lowance u/s 14A of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that assessee s case is covered by the DCIT vs. M/s Advantage Securities Ltd. (supra). 5. Per contra the Ld. departmental representative (DR) relying on the concurrent findings of the authorities below, submitted that as per law every case is to be decided on its own merit and the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO keeping in view the issues raised by the assessee, therefore, there is no scope to interfere with the impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ade for purchase of trading shares u/s.14A of the I.T. Act in case of CCL Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra). The assessee in that case was distributor of state lotteries and a dealer in shares and securities. The assessee had taken loans for the purchase of certain shares and it had incurred expenditure for broking the loans which had been disallowed under Rule 8D by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the authorities below that the expenditure relatable to earning of dividend .....

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. The High Court noted that 63% of shares which were purchased were sold and income derived was offered to tax as business income. The remaining 30% of shares which remained unsold had reverted to dividend income for which the assessee had not incurred any expenditure at all. The High Court also observed that the assessee had not retained the shares with the intention of earning dividend income which was incidental due to his sale of shares which remained unsold by the assessee. 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

view of the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCL Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) the disallowance of interest in relation to the dividend received from trading shares cannot be made. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance u/s.14A computed by the A.O. in relation to the stock-in-trade. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly upheld. 7. The Revenue assailed the said findings of the Mumbai Tribunal before the Hon ble Bombay High .....

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 appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the findings of the AO are based on the general statement of witness which is not corroborated by any documentary evidence and the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the same. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Ld. DR, on the other hand relying upon the concurrent findings of the authorities below submitted that the evidence on record is sufficient to deny the deduction claimed by the assessee. 9. In the light o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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