TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax (appeals) has erred in not accepting the contentions of the assessee that various expenses incurred by the assessee viz., PMS charges, professional fees salary is integral to the investment activity undertaken by him and to earn the income returned in the return of income for the previous year. In view of this the assessee believes that the expenses claimed under Section 57 of ₹ 18,89,670/- as a deduction from the total income is fully justifiable. 1.1 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also not appreciated the fact that certain class of assets may not earn income in a certain year viz., investment in unlisted equities and foreign investments and that this fact will not hamper the allowability of the expenditure incurred to manage and maintain the portfolio. Since some of the income may be exempt under the Income Tax Act, the assessee has voluntarily disallowed expenditure to an extent of income not includible in total income as computed below: Investments Amount in Rs. Investments as on 01/04/2012 41,04,43,249 Investments as on 31/03/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereby entitling the assessee relief under section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The assessee also wishes to state that the expenses claimed are clearly outgoings and in the most unlikely event of your honor not considering the claim as above the said amount have to be capitalized on the various investments that he is holding so that the necessary claim can be made when the said investment are transferred and tax liability arises in accordance with the scheme of the Act. Your appellant seeks leave to add to, to amend any of the foregoing grounds as and when considered necessary/at the time of hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 30.07.2013 declaring a loss of (-) ₹ 3,89,478/-. Subsequently revised return of income was filed on 29.07.2014 declaring a total income of ₹ 8,12,640/- and the second revised return of income was filed on 25.02.2015 declaring a total income of ₹ 80,64,780/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 25.03.2016 determining the total income at ₹ 1,25,14,780/- and consequently raised a demand of ₹ 19,04,944/-. While c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) as reproduced above, it is seen that there is no claim regarding any expenses specified in clause (i) of section 57 i.e. commission or remuneration to banker or any other person for the purpose of realising dividend or interest income because the assessee has claimed deduction on account of PMS charges, Salaries, Professional charges, vehicle maintenance, travel, computer maintenance, printing and stationery, telephone charges and bank charges. Hence no deduction is allowable in the present case under clause (i) of section 57. 9. Regarding the allowability of deduction under clause (iii) of section 57, it has to be established by the assessee that expenditure has been exclusively laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income taxable under the head 'income from other sources' and a categorical finding has been given by CIT(A) in para No. 6.2 of his order as reproduced above that no such detail was furnished by the assessee. Before us also, the assessee has made general arguments and has submitted general details but no specific details were furnished before us also. Hence, we hold that no deduction is allowable u/s. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, such expenses incurred were wholly and exclusively for the activities to earn income and it was held that such expenses are allowable. For the same ratio, judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Chinai Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT a reported in 206 ITR 616 was also followed and the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of Rampur Timbur Turnery Co. Ltd. as reported in 129 ITR 58 was also followed. Since in the present case, the assessee is not a company, these judgments of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganga Properties Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chinai Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) and of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rampur Timbur Turnery Co. Ltd. (supra) have no relevance and since, the Tribunal has followed these judgments and decided the issue in case of that assessee being a company, this Tribunal order is also not applicable in the present case. The nature of expenses in dispute in that case are noted by the Tribunal in the form of a table and from the same, it is seen that the expenses claimed in that case were regarding the personal expens ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
