TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... business premises of the assessee. The assessee offered additional income of ₹ 33,22,000/-. The whole case of the Revenue is that the assessee made huge client code modification resulting into loss of ₹ 2,88,55,000/-. The case of the assessee is that all the transactions were made on recognized stock exchange, i.e. MCX, through authorized broker M/s Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd. and the assessee also furnished the code of contract note. CIT (Appeal) dully followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (8) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI] and Sambhava Investment Ltd. [ 2014 (1) TMI 84 - ITAT MUMBAI] and deleted the addition. The revenue authorities ignored the reply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvocate, defended the conclusion drawn by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) by explaining that the assessee is an investor and not a broker and if the broker has done something wrong, the assessee cannot be held responsible for the same. 2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of shares and stock broking and trading declared total income of ₹ 1,87,294/- in its return filed on 30/09/2009, which was completed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) on 03/11/2010. The assessee received notice u/s 148 dated 29/03/2016 on 30/03/2016 to which the assessee explained that the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the transactions were made on recognized stock exchange, i.e. MCX, through authorized broker M/s Riddi Siddhi Bullions Ltd. and the assessee also furnished the code of contract note. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dully followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Income Tax Officer vs Pat Commodity Services Pvt. Ltd. (ITA NO.3489 3499/Mum/2012) order dated 07/08/2015 and Sambhava Investment Ltd. (ITA NO.3109/Mum/2011) order dated 19/12/2013 and deleted the addition. It is also noted that the revenue authorities ignored the reply to question no.9, wherein, the partner of the assessee denied of having made any request for any change in client code. The assessee also paid a margin money of ₹ 2.90 crores to RSB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
