TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the appellant/assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that a general statement made by SIES before the investigating officer, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant/assessee has received back the amount paid to SIES as donation. In our considered view, there is force in the contention of the assessee. 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 asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) The disallowance cannot exceed the expenses claimed. 3. The Learned CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed disallowance u/s 14A r. w. Rule 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 that the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the disallowance made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 income though incidental to the trading in shares was also to be disallowed u/s.14A of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal however, had observed that the entire broking commission was not relatable to earning of dividend income as the loan had been utilised for the purchase of shares and the profit shown from the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Court in Income Tax Appeal No 1131of 2013, CIT vs. India Advantage Securities Ltd. The Hon ble Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue and confirmed the findings of the Tribunal vide judgment dated 17.3.2015. In view of the findings of the coordinate Bench confirmed by the Hon ble Bombay High Court, in the identical issue, we set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue involved in this ground of the appeal and allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. 8. As regards ground No 2 of the appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeding, summoned SIES. In response thereof, SIES vide letter dated 23.10.2010 confirmed having received donation from the appellant/assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that a general statement made by SIES before the investigating officer, is not sufficient to hold that the appellant/assessee has received back the amount paid to SIES as donation. In our considered view, there is force in the contention of the assessee. 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) h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
