TARUN KANTI CHINA,HOWRAH vs. I.T.O.,WARD-46(3), KOLKATA

Ground no. 1 is not pressed so it is dismissed as not pressed.

Ground no. 2 is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not allowing credit of Security Transaction Tax (in short STT) paid while computing short term capital gains (in short STCG) of Rs.81,265/-.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not disclose any income from STCG. Based on the information gathered from the broker M/s. Venus Securities Ltd. that the assessee has earned STCG of Rs.7,69,599/- the AO confronted this fact with the assessee. Pursuant to the notice the assessee submitted that the STCG calculated by AO is not correct and submitted a computation of Rs.3,05,533/-. However, that was rejected by the AO and he made computation of STCG at Rs.6,21,349/- which has been added back to the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who gave partial relief to the assessee by holding as under:

Still not satisfied by the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) (supra), the assessee is before us and has limited grievance that since the assessee had paid STT on the gain (STCG), the tax rate applicable is only @ 15% and not 30%. In order to support his contention, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has made a factual finding that the assessee had actually earned STCG of Rs.4,32,288/- which has now become final since the department has not preferred any cross-appeal or CO against this finding of Ld. CIT(A). Having said so, according to Ld. AR since the assessee had made payment of STT to the tune of Rs.81,265/- which is evident from pages 2 and 3 of the paper book wherein it is noted that total STT collected was (Rs.43,344 + Rs.37,845 + Rs.5 + Rs.71) which is the certificate given by the broker M/s. Guiness Securities Ltd. for the transaction in question. Since the STCG claim of Rs.4,32,288/- has suffered STT to the tune of Rs.81,265/- tax applicable is only @ 15% and the AO is directed to re-compute the tax on STCG at 15% of Rs.4,32,288/-. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed as discussed.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had given donation to Manasha Tample, Haridwar and Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri to the tune of Rs.5,555/- and Rs.11,111/- respectively (page 7 and 8 of paper book). However, the AO did not allow the section 80G deduction and according to ld. AR, even though the Ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the donation claimed by assessee for deduction u/s. 80G of the Act has not done so by giving any opportunity to the assessee and has disallowed the same.

On this issue, my attention was drawn to pages 7 and 8 of paper book which shows that the assessee has given donation to both the temples stated above. Since the Ld. DR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed.