9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 808X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the statutory provisions and liable to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the investment in shares made by the Appellant as stock-in-trade. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer assessing the loss of Rs. 2,32,39,872/- claimed as short term capital loss and Rs. 1,49,58,2807- claimed as long term capital loss under head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession'. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scretionary portfolio management service agreement with Relegated Securities Ltd., in June 2006, and the assessee handed over its surplus funds to the portfolio manager. The assessee declared short term capital loss and long term capital loss for frequent transactions in shares which were not claimed by the assessee during the year. After going through the submissions made by the assessee Ld. AO treated the sale and purchase of shares as trading activity in shares done in preceding assessment years. Ld. AO also disallowed an expenses of Rs. 4,68,503/- and towards expenses relating to the earning of exempt income. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who upheld the findings of Ld. AO. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of share transaction but of providing online and real time education to retail and institutional plans on a variety of programmes and subject. In fact in earlier year also the CIT(A) has held the same. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue is dismissed. As relates to Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the Revenue, the depreciation has been rightly allowed by the CIT(A) on the basis of decision in the case of M/s. Datacraft India Limited vs. DCIT passed by the Special Bench ITAT Mumbai and also Delhi High Court's decision in case of CIT vs. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. wherein it was held that computer accessories and peripherals such as printers, scanners and server etc. form an integral part of the computer system and are therefore, entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and assessing officer has added 0.5% of such investment as expenses relating to administration as provided by rule 8D (2) (iii) of the rules 1962. Considering the assessment year involved, we agree with the plea advanced by the Ld. DR that the assessing officer was duty bound to calculate the disallowance by applying rule 8D. We do not agree with the arguments advanced by the assessee that no expenditure can be attributed to the earning of the tax free income. Thus, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and the same is upheld. The result the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed. Ground No. 5 13. This ground pertains to the interest chargeable under section 234B of the Act. As this is consequenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
