ACIT CIR 21(1), MUMBAI vs. NINA SUNIL DALAL, MUMBAI

Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in business of trading in shares and F&O. While computing disallowance u/s.14A with rule 8D the AO took the average value of investment without excluding shares held as stock- in-trade. By the impugned order CIT(A) deleted the addition so made after giving detailed observation at para 3.3 of his appellate order.

We have considered rival contentions and found that issue under consideration is covered by the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s India Advantage Securities Ltd., ITA No.1131 of 2013, dated 13-4-2015, wherein it was held that shares held as stock-in-trade is to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s.14A read with rule 8D. Similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Vivek Mehrotra, ITA No.915/Mum/2013, dated 16-3-2016, M/s JMP Securities Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.5688/Mum/2013, dated 19-2-2016. Respectfully following the order of the jurisdictional High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for excluding shares held as stock-in-trade for computing disallowance under rule 8D. ITA No.1846/Mum/2014(AY:2010-11)(Assessee’s Appeal): 4. In the appeal so filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-2011 the assessee is aggrieved for the disallowance computing u/s.14A read with Rule 8D without excluding shares held as stock-in- trade. As discussed hereinabove in para 3, following the same