TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia) of the Act, arises Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has considered that the Respondent was holding the shares as a stock-in-trade and has, therefore, disallowed the addition made by the JAO. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not disputed the fact that the shares are held as stock-in-trade by the Respondent. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the questions of law proposed by the Appellant do not arise for consideration either in fact or in law. - ITA 159/2022 & CM APPL. Nos. 23837-38/2022 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2022 - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN AND HON BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA Appellant Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Tushar Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel with Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate. Respondent Through: None. J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J: CM APPL. 23837-38/2022 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, applications stand disposed of. ITA 159/2022 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) against the impugned final judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT (Appeals) confirming the above noted disallowances under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deposit of TDS and section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(iii) on account of exempt income, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 19th February, 2020 allowed the appeal of the Respondent with respect to the aforesaid disallowances. With respect to disallowance made by the JAO under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act the Tribunal held as follows: 12. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials available on record. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A) and on the other hand the ld. DR has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. We note that the said TDS was paid before the filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposited the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) with the Government by the due date for filing the return of income. 13. The said finding of the Tribunal returned after perusing the documents furnished by the Respondent cannot be disputed in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not brought on record any material to dislodge the said finding of fact returned by the Tribunal. Since the deposit of TDS was made within the time permitted, the Tribunal is right in holding that the said expense incurred by the Respondent cannot be disallowed. In this regard, findings of the Tribunal are in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Calcutta Export Company reported in 2018 404 ITR 654 (SC) and in this regard paragraph 30 of the said judgment is relevant: ...30) Hence, in the light of the forgoing discussion and the binding effect of the judgment given in Allied Motors (supra), we are of the view that the amended provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act should be interpreted liberally and equitably and applies retrospectively from the date when section 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. (ITA No. 1331/Del/2012) wherein issue relating to Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules in respect of shares held in stock has been discussed and adjudicated in favour of the Assessee therein. 18. Learned counsel for Appellant has submitted that the facts of the assessee in the case of Nice Bombay Transport Pvt Ltd. (supra) are distinct from the case at hand, however, no submissions have been made with respect to the said distinguishing facts . On the contrary, it is noted that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2018 402 ITR 640 (SC) that in cases where the main purpose for investing in shares was to hold the same as stock-in-trade, the expenditure incurred by the Respondent shall be permissible to be deducted from its gross income. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under: 40 It is to be kept in mind that in those cases where shares are held as stock-in-trade , it becomes a business activity of the assessee to deal in those shares as a business proposition. Whether dividend is earned or not becomes immaterial. In fact, it would be a quirk of fate that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
