TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 657X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid finding of the Assessing Officer. No material has been brought by the assessee before us to controvert the aforesaid factual findings of the Departmental Authorities. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Disallowance of interest - Held that:- Assessing Officer while treating the income derived from share transaction as business income has actually allowed the interest expenditure of ₹ 7,24,408 and assessed the net business income of ₹ 23,12,136. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the disallowance of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer was misconc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of investment in terms of rule 8D(2)(iii) is concerned, we agree with the view of the Departmental Authorities - ITA no.2758/Mum./2012 - - - Dated:- 16-9-2016 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRIN.K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Shri B.S. Bist ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2nd March 2012, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 30, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2008 09. 2. As could be seen from record, the present appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal on 23rd April 2013 and it was fixed for hearing for the first time on 9th May 2013. From the very first date of hearing, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad of short term capital gain. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee is an individual. For the assessment year under consideration, he filed his return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ₹ 31,29,608. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has shown short term capital gain of ₹ 30,36,555 on sale of shares and against such income has shown interest expenditure of ₹ 7,24,408. After calling for details of share transactions from the assessee and examining them the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has entered into frequent transaction of purchase and sale of shares. He observed, during the relevant previous year, assessee has dealt in 22 scrips giving r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing Officer. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. The issue before us is whether the income from share transaction is to be assessed as short term capital gain as claimed by the assessee or business income as held by the Department. From the facts discussed in the assessment order, it is found that out of total 41 transactions in shares, 39 shares were held for less than a month. Further, it has been found by the Assessing Officer that in 22 scrips, the assessee had made repeated entry and exit which indicate the intention of the assessee to trade in shares rather than holding it as investment. The Assessing Officer has also observed that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was justified in not allowing the interest expenditure of ₹ 7,24,408. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer while treating the income derived from share transaction as business income has actually allowed the interest expenditure of ₹ 7,24,408 and assessed the net business income of ₹ 23,12,136. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the disallowance of interest expenditure by the Assessing Officer was misconceived. Similarly, the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the disallowance of interest expenditure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,408 out of which he worked out interest attributable to earning of exempt income at ₹ 1,85,547 in terms of rule 8D(2)(ii). He also worked out disallowance under rule 8D(2)(iii) @ 0.5% of the average value of investment at ₹ 1,81,813. Thus, the total disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer under section 14A r/w rule 8D, was ₹ 3,67,360. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, the assessee challenged the same before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, confirmed the disallowance. 14. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. As is evident, the Assessing Officer while computing the disallowance under section 14A, has app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
