TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 929X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. The case of the assessee is supported by the a number of decisions of the tribunal taking a view that no disallowance is attracted in case of traders of shares and securities. Since the assessee is doing the business of trading in shares and securities and was not making any investments in the securities as investor, therefore, section 14A r.w.r 8D cannot be applied to the case of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.810 And 811/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2017 - SHRI D.T.GARASIA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM For The Appellant : Shri Sunil Kirawat For The Respondent : Shri T A Khan ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of dividend received from shares is ancillary to the trading of shares and securities by the assessee firm. In support of assessee s contentions, the assessee sought support from the decisions in the case of CIT V/s Walfort Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd reported in (2008) 219 CTR 9 (Bom) 409 and the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Hindustan Co-op Society services Co. Ltd reported in 2008, 170 Taxman 458(Del). The reply of the assessee did not find favour of the assessing officer and he invoked the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D and worked out the disallowance at ₹ 43,00,862/- comprising of ₹ 40,29,913/- under rule 8D(2)(ii) and ₹ 2,70,948/- under rule 8D(2)(iii). In the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court in the case of India Advantage Securities Ltd. (ITA No.1131 of 2013) vide order dated 13 April 2015 has dismissed the appeal of revenue on the ground that it does not raise any substantial question of law. I do not find any decision by the Hon'ble High Court that disallowance u/ 14A r.w.r.BD cannot be made in case of shares held as stock in trade. 6.4 In view of above, it is clear that the issue has not attained finality and conflicting decisions are coming on this issue. Respectfully, following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of D.H.Securities (P) Ltd. vs. CIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 352/146 ITD 1 (TM), ITO vs. Daga Capital Management (P.) Ltd. [2009] 117 ITD 169 and Doubledot Finance Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2014] On shares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 14A are not to be invoked. The ld CIT(A) has relied on some decisions as have been mentioned in the findings of the CIT(A) hereinabove but the the majority decisions have taken a contrary view and therefore we are in agreement with the conclusion of the CIT(A) on the issue. Thus, respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases cited supra, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the disallowance as made under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. I.T.A. No.811/Mum/2016 5. The issue raised in this appeal is identical to that of issue decided by us in ITA No.810/M/2016 and hence the decision taken therein w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
