BUSINESSMATCH SERVICES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 4(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6386/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the discrepancy in the amount of long-term capital loss and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in consultancy services, filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring a long-term capital loss. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions, and the CIT(A) directed the AO to allow carry forward of long-term capital loss after verification, but erroneously mentioned a lesser amount.

What were the issues?

Discrepancy in the amount of long-term capital loss to be carried forward and the subsequent rejection of rectification by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 250,Section 254,Section 139,Section 143(3),Section 115-JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARANSHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant S. Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Date of Hearing – 30/01/2025 Date of Order – 04/02/2025

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 29/04/2024, passed under section 154 read with section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following ground: - 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)'] erred in restricting the carry

2 Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. forward Long Term Capital Loss to Rs. 16,89,412/- in the order passed u/s 250 r.w.s 254 r.w.s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) as against Appellant's claim of Rs. 16,89,86,412/- in the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. The Appellant submit that it has carried forward the Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 16,89,86,412/- in the return of income; hence, the claim of the said amount towards carry forward of loss shall be allowed.

3.

The sole grievance of the assessee, in the present appeal, is against the incorrect computation of long-term capital loss.

4.

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of providing consultancy services for private placement of shares with foreign institutional investors, financial institutes, strategic investment, arranging loans and also insurance business advice. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014, declaring a loss of INR 22,63,44,738 and declared a book loss under section 115-JB of the Act of INR 5,44,63,443. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 28/12/2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 9,19,22,985 after making certain disallowances/additions. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that vide assessment order, the AO wrongly stated the amount of long-term capital loss as INR 13,05,66,158 without altering the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that the learned CIT(A), though allowed the ground of appeal

filed by the assessee and directed the AO to allow carry forward of long-term capital loss after due verification, however, mentioned the amount as INR 16,89,412 instead of INR 16,89,86,412. Further, the rectification application filed by the assessee was rejected by the 3. Businessmatch Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, on the basis that in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee, the amount of long-term capital loss is mentioned as INR 16,89,412. In support of its submission that during the year under consideration, the long-term capital loss of INR 16,89,86,412 was claimed by the assessee, the learned AR referred to the computation of total income forming part of the paper book on page no. 2.

5.

On the other hand, the learned DR submitted that this issue requires verification at the end of the Assessing Officer.

6.

Therefore, having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a direction to verify from the record the amount of long-term capital loss and allow carry forward of the same as per law. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/02/2025

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →