VINAY J MASHRUWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3976/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 2016AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A could be made on account of interest payment due to sufficient own funds. Regarding brokerage income, it was held that the income was accounted for in the subsequent year as per the assessee's consistent practice.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the disallowance under Section 14A and an addition for brokerage income. The assessee claimed sufficient own funds for investment and a consistent accounting practice for brokerage income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when the assessee has sufficient own funds, and whether brokerage income earned in the year under consideration should be added when accounted for in the subsequent year as per consistent practice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA

Hearing: 13/07/2016Pronounced: 14/07/2016

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- Mumbai, for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In this appeal the assessee is aggrieved for disallowance u/s.14A on the plea that assessee was having sufficient funds for investment. Our attention was also invited to the balance sheet placed on record, wherein we found that assessee was having sufficient own funds. Accordingly, no disallowance u/s.14A can be made on account of interest payment. Accordingly, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance at .05% of other expenses as provided under rule 8D(iii). We direct accordingly.

3.

The assessee is also aggrieved for addition of Rs.69,685/- in respect of brokerage income. As per AO, the assessee has earned the brokerage income in the year under consideration. It was contention of ld. decided and completed by Bombay Stock Exchange. As the statement for last 2 to 3 days were not completed but the same were completed in the month of April, the assessee has already taken into account this income in the next year.

4.

We have considered rival contentions and found that assessee was consistently following the system of accounting for which last statement was not completed was taken into account in the next year. The assessee has also filed reconciliation of brokerage income for assessment year 2008-09 to 2012-2013. We found that even in these assessment years similar method was accepted by the AO u/s.143(3) assessment. Insofar as income have already been offered in the subsequent year on the completion of settlement, no addition is warranted during the year under consideration. We direct accordingly.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on this 14/07/2016. (R.C.SHARMA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated 14/07/2016 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, नन.स/ PS आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai. 3. आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ा पाईर / Guard file. 6. उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →