9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any engaged in the business as property developers and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 showing income as nil. The case of the asseessee was selected for scrutiny in the year under consideration and assessment order was contemplated under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'I.T.Act'), whereas the assessee's loss was determined at Rs. 6,00,36,601/- in view of disallowance of Rs. 6,11,21,496/- under Section 14A of the I.T.Act read with Rule 8D(2) of the I.T.Rules, 1962. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ITAT and the ITAT has allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee, against w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that no credit in respect of such amount has directly or indirectly been claimed or shall be claimed for any other assessment year, the Assessing Officer shall amend the order of assessment or any intimation or deemed intimation under subsection (1) of section 143, as the case may be, and the provisions of section 154 shall, so far as may be, apply thereto: Provided that the credit of tax which was under dispute shall be allowed for the year in which such income is offered to tax or assessed to tax in India." 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee has stated before this Court with the aid and assistance of the documents that the assessee in the relevant year has not at all earned any exempted income, and therefore, the question of disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income. This court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD supra which was reproduced in Paragraph 5 of the decision and reliance was also placed on Circular dated 11.02.2014 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). However, the aforesaid decision was subsequently considered by this court in judgment dated 16.01.2021 passed in I.T.A.No.271/2017 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NOVEL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT) in which it was held that decision of this court in KINGFISHER FINVEST LTD. was distinguishable as the basis of the aforesaid decision of this court was the decision of the Supreme Court in MAXOPP INVESTMENTS LTD. supra and it was held that the aforesaid decision does not deal with applicabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee and the assessee alone. Therefore, even that the time of investing into those shares, the assessee knows that it may generate dividend income as well and as and when such dividend income is generated that would be earned by the assessee. In contrast, where the shares are held as stock-in-trade, this may not be necessarily a situation. The main purpose is to liquidate those shares whenever the share price goes upon order to earn profits. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State Bank of Patiala also fail, though law in this respect has been clarified hereinabove. 15. From perusal of the relevant extract of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
