SANJAY GUPTA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RG 19(1), MUMBAI

All these appeals are filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-30, Mumbai pertaining to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09.

2 Sanjay K. Gupta

ITA NO.6589/Mum/2010:-

“1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment of Rs.64,58,647/- declared by the appellant under the head ‘short term capital gain’ as income from business.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the disallowance of a sum of Rs.5,44,455/- u/s.14A of the Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in concurring with the disallowance of Rs.10,000/- out of Rs.50,000/- claimed by the appellant as depreciation on motor car.

5. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in approving the disallowance of Rs.7,161/- out of telephone expenses of Rs.35,807/- claimed by the appellant.

6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in summarily rejecting the ground raised against levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.

3 Sanjay K. Gupta various aspects viz., magnitude of purchase and sale of shares, dividend income received, marketability of shares, source of funds for acquiring shares, treatment of shares on their sale accounts, motives for the purchase and sale of shares etc., held that these transactions are carried out by the assessee in purchase and sale of shares are nothing but business income and should be assessed as such. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this view of the Assessing Officer is upheld by the CIT(A).

5. Coming to the disallowance made u/s.14A, the Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the assessee earned dividend income of Rs.1,29,212/- and he has not made any disallowance towards expenses for earning such dividend income. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 4,95,796/- towards interest and Rs. 48,659/- being 0.5% of average value of investment u/s.14A read with rule 8D. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained such disallowance.

6. Coming to disallowance of deprecation on motor car and telephone expresses, he submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessments made disallowance of depreciation on motor car of Rs. 10,000/- out of Rs. 50,000/- claimed and telephone expenses of Rs.7,161/- out of Rs. 35,807/- He submits that the Assessing Officer disallowed 20% of these expenses treating them for personal use. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the said disallowances.

4 Sanjay K. Gupta no infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

“1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment of Rs.60,09,447/- declared by the appellant under the head ‘short term capital gain’ as income from business.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the disallowance of a sum of Rs.7,72,443/- u/s.14A of the Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in concurring with the disallowance of Rs.8,000/- out of Rs.40,000/- claimed by the appellant as depreciation on motor car.

5 Sanjay K. Gupta transactions are carried out by the assessee in purchase and sale of shares are nothing but business income and should be assessed as such. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this view of the Assessing Officer is upheld by the CIT(A).

ITA NO.6393/Mum/2012 A.Y. (2008-09):-

6 Sanjay K. Gupta “1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in passing the appellate order, which is invalid and bad in law.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment of Rs.1,67,16,101/- declared by the appellant under the head ‘short term capital gain’ as income from business.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in sustaining the disallowance of a sum of Rs.7,40,359/- u/s.14A of the Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in laws and in facts in summarily rejecting the ground raised against the levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act.”

14 The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment treated the income from sale of shares as income from business of the assessee as against the contention of the assessee that the same should be assessable under the head capital gains. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that the Assessing Officer after considering various aspects magnitude of purchase and sale of shares, dividend income received, marketability of shares, source of funds for acquiring shares, treatment of shares on their sale accounts, motives for the purchase and sale of shares etc., held that these transactions are carried out by the assessee in purchase and sale of shares are nothing but business income and should be assessed as such. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this view of the Assessing Officer is upheld by the CIT(A).

7 Sanjay K. Gupta 7,40,359/- towards interest and Rs. 87,238/- being 0.5% of average value of investment u/s.14A read with rule 8D. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained such disallowance.