LIGHT RAY ADVISORS LLP,BANGALORE, KARNATAKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2440/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 February 2025AY 2018-2019Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (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 held that the lower authorities had not considered the papers filed by the assessee. It restored the matter to the AO with a direction to allow the claim if the assessee could establish that the dividend income was indeed from mutual funds and thus exempt from taxation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Limited Liability Partnership engaged in investment advisory services, filed its return of income. The CPC proposed adjustments for dividend income from mutual funds, which the assessee claimed as exempt. The lower authorities disallowed the claim, stating a lack of documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the dividend income from mutual funds, claimed as exempt by the assessee, was properly considered and allowed by the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 10(35)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV

For Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Hearing: 29.01.2025Pronounced: 03.02.2025

PER PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Present appeals of the assessee are arising from different orders of ld. CIT(A) both dated 21.10.2024 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069805974(1) for AY 2018-19 & DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1069830029(1) for AY 2019- 20.

2.

Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of present appeals are that the assessee is a Limited Liability Partnership (“LLP”) engaged in the business of investment advisory services. It has filed its return of income on 17.10.2018 declaring an income of Rs.27,68,74,140/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

&2441/Bang/2024 Light Ray Advisors LLP, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 Thereafter, the CPC issued a notice to the assessee proposing an adjustment of Rs.51,83,084/- for AY 2018-19 and an amount of Rs.52,61,099/- for AY 2019-20. In response to the notice of CPC, the assessee filed a response. However, the ld. CPC disallowed the claim of the assessee. It is relevant to mention here that in AY 2018- 19, an amount of Rs.51,83,004/- has been received by the assessee as dividend from mutual funds and the same were claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s 10(35) of the Act. For the assessment year 2019-20, the facts are same, there is difference in figure of disallowance. Therefore, we are deciding these two appeals by way of this consolidated order.

3.

Aggrieved with the order of CPC, assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and contended various aspects of the matter. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any force in the submissions of the assessee and observed that the assessee failed to file any documentary evidences vis-à-vis the dividend income earned from mutual fund and not from companies. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee has come up in appeal.

4.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that ld. JCIT(A) has erred in observing that the assessee has failed to file any documentary evidence before the lower authorities. Counsel for the assessee drawn the attention of the bench before the voluminous papers filed with the NFC and CPC, Bangalore.

5.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. However, the ld. D.R. submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of JAO to decide the matter afresh.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. After considering the facts and &2441/Bang/2024 Light Ray Advisors LLP, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the lower authorities have not at all considered the papers filed before with them. Therefore, we restore the matter to the file of JAO with a direction that if the assessee is able to establish that the dividend income is earned from mutual funds, which are exempt from taxation, then the claim of the assessee deserves to be allowed. With this direction, we restore this matter to the jurisdictional AO.

7.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd Feb, 2024

More judgments on Section 10(35)

All 196 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(35) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →