TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... negates its contention that the assessee has indulged in investment activity. A substantial relief has already been provided by CIT(A) with respect to balance amount. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. Section 14A disallowance - Held that:- No calculations have been provided by AO so as to arrive at the figures of ₹ 1,65,595/- in the assessment order. As per Ld. AR, the assessee agitated the matter before CIT(A) but the same was not considered. Further, the Ld. AR has contended that this disallowance, if any, has to be made then it should be restricted to amount of dividend earned by the assessee. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 899/- besides speculation loss and income from other sources. The AO applied various parameters on the share transaction activities carried out by assessee and relied on various judicial pronouncements and CBDT Instruction No. 1827 dated 31/08/1989 and concluded that impugned transactions constituted Business Income and not STCG in the hands of the assessee. AO noted that share transaction activity was being carried on in regular and systematic manner over several years with a profit motive. Moreover, activities were voluminous both in terms of quantity and quantum. The holding period was low and there were repetitive sale purchase transactions. Further, as assessee earned tax free incomes, he applied Section 14A and computed disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee may maintain two separate portfolios. The stand of the assessee has been accepted by revenue in other years also. Further, owned capital was much more than investment in shares which further fortifies the claim of the assessee that it indulged in investment activities. In support, a copy of Balance Sheet as on 31/03/2010 has been placed before us. The Ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Bombay High Court ITA No. 330 of 2012 and also on M/s Vahanvati Consultants P. Ltd V DCIT Mumbai Tribunal ITA No. 8700/Mum/2011, a copy of which has been placed before us. Qua 14A disallowance, the Ld. AR has contended that dividend has been earned from trading portfolio and hence no 14A disallowance is called for in such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. The case law relied upon by assessee are of no help on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. They only affirm the presumption that in case of availability of interest free funds and loan funds with assessee, a presumption would be made that investment are made out of interest free funds. But this is not the dispute here rather the present dispute is with respect to nature of transaction being carried out by assessee in the scrip Jain Irrigation . Qua 14A disallowance, no calculations have been provided by AO so as to arrive at the figures of ₹ 1,65,595/- in the assessment order. As per Ld. AR, the assessee agitated the matter before CIT(A) but the same was not cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
