9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 to condone the delay. We after hearing the ld. D.R. and on the basis of the application dated 08.09.2011 condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 3. The only issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue relates to shares held by the assessee as investment and treating the gain from share transactions as business income or capital gain. 4. After hearing the rival submissions and carefully considering the same, we noted that the issue involved is duly covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in G.A. No. 2489 of 2014 in ITAT No. 113 of 2014, in which the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of assessee's wife vide order dated 01.09.2014 took the view on the similar issue in the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CBDT Circular No.4/2007. The reliance of Assessing Officer on the decision of ITO Vs. Lily Exports Pvt. Ltd. of Hon'ble I.T.A.T. 'A' -Bench, Kolkata is based on different facts and cannot be applied in the appellant's case. In the aforementioned case the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. has referred to several factors while holding that the income was normal business profit referring to short period of retention and other factors which are missing in the case of appellant. On the other hand, the decisions in the case of M/s. Astrix Enterprises and M/s. Eterna Steel & Investment Pv t. Ltd. Supra are squarely applicable in the appellant's case. It may also be mentioned that the matter had been considered in appeal in her own case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim pertaining to expenses of Rs. 1,500/- being the consultation fees for income tax matters. (3) For that the CIT(A) erred in marshalling relevant facts of the case of the appellant, who had earned dividend income of Rs. 6,81,596/-, and that there were no expenses incurred and/or claimed for earning of exempt income and hence there was no ground to apply provisions of section 14A. 6. Ground No. 1 relates to the claim of deduction by the assessee in respect of the salary amounting to Rs. 21,000/-. 7. The assesse is a proprietor of M/s. Janardan Hosiery Mills where the assessee has incurred the expenditure towards the salary. The said salary was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. When the matter went before the CIT(Appeals), the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee towards income-tax consultancy are for the purpose of business. We accordingly delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Thus this ground is allowed. 11. The third ground relates to the disallowance made by applying the provisions of section 14A as well as Rule 8D. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the expenditure by invoking Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Income Tax Act. We noted that Rule 8D has been inserted by the Income Tax (5th Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 24th March, 2008. Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 (Mum.) has clearly held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
