TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee. Since, the issue in question has duly been covered by the above mentioned cases. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is quite correct and is not liable to be interfere with - Decided against the revenue. Addition u/s 14A - assessee earned the exempt income in the Form of dividend on shares/MF/debentures held stock exchanged - HELD THAT:- The case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-3(1)(2) [2015 (11) TMI 1067 - ITAT MUMBAI] in which it is specifically held that where the investment was held as stock in trade then the provision u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act was not applicable. This issue has also been decided in favour of Assessee by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. India Advanta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sactions would get crystallized only at the time of settlement of such transaction. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in excluding the stock-in-trade from the Total Investment to be considered for the purposes of computing disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D, without appreciating that the investment in stock in trade is nothing but Business Investment and that Rule 8D does not exclude business investment from the purview of Investment. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may necessary. 3. The brief facts of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the basis of the value derivative as on 31st March is merely a notional loss and the actual loss or the profit of such derivative transaction would be crystallized only at the time of settlement of such transaction, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has strongly relied upon the finding of the CIT(A) in question. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the assessee initially claimed the Mark to Market (MTM) provision for amount on derivative instrument which was disallowed by the AO. In appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imited (ITA 7656/M/2011) 5. DCIT Vs. Kotak Mahindra Investment Limited(ITA 1502/M/2012 6. Shri Ramesh Kumar Damani Vs. Addll. CIT (ITA 809/M/2009) 7. M/s Ekansha Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (ITA 809/M/2012) 8. ACIT Vs. Suryakant D. Nissar (ITA 2750/M/2010) 9. DCIT Vs. Edelweiss Securities Limited (ITA 5939/M/2011) In view of the direct decisions on the issue from jurisdictional ITAT the disallowance of ₹ 5,20,75,140/- made on this account is deleted. These grounds of appeal are allowed. 6. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the claim of the assessee has duly covered by the assessee s own case in ITA. No.2193/M/2009 in which the claim of the assessee has been allowed. The other law mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res/ME/debentures held as stock in trade and claimed the same to be exempt under section 10(34). This fact is admitted by the assessing officer at para 54 of his order. He has rejected contention of the appellant that dividend on shares etc., held as stock in trade cannot be subjected to disallowance u/s 14A and has ignored the various decisions of jurisdictional courts on the matter. 5.3.3 I find that the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of Devkant Synthetics (India) Pvt Ltd V/s ITO-3(1)(2) in ITA No. 2663, 2664 and 2665 of 2015 dated 28.10.2015 decided the non-applicability section 14A r.w. Rule 80 in the case where the investments are held as stock-in-trade. This decision was backed by judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
