Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Logus Realty Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Addl. CIT Range 8 (2) , Mumbai.

2016 (8) TMI 818 - ITAT MUMBAI

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 before the investigation wing, the AO d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lly 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 assessee. - ITA No. 8529/MUM/2011 - Da .....

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 ₹ 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 this Tribunal against the impugned ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nsel 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 impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 income though incidental to the trading .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 High Court, therefore, did not uphold t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urt 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 Court in Income Tax Appeal No 1131of 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sessee 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 of the contentions of the parties, we ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version