DCIT v. KRA

ACIT CIR 16(1), MUMBAI vs. APURVA MAHESH SHAH, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sh. Apurva Mahesh Shah, 1403, Tax-16(1), Mumbai. Pleasant Palace, Narayan बिधम/ Dabholkar Road, Mumbai-400 Vs. 006. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Abbps3726K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

…rein too it was held that the portfolio management fees was not allowable as a deduction while computing the STCG on transfer of shares. In this regard we further find that ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. KRA Holdings and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 54 SOT 493 (Pune), after considering the view taken by ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Homi Bhabha (supra) had arrived at a contrary view and following its earlier order had concluded that the portfolio management expenses were to be allowed as deduction under Sec. 48 of the Act while computing the STCG on transfer of shares. P a g e | 6 ITA No. 6956/Mum/2011 A…

AMRIT DIAMOND TRADE CENTRE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

…the assessment year 2009-10 has considered the issue of PMS fees while computing income under the head ‘capital gains’ and by following the order of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Pune in KRA Holdings and Tradings Pvt Ltd 6 ITA 5011/Mum/2015 vs DCIT (2011) 46 SOT 19 (Pune) held that PMS fees is deductible expenditure while computing income under the head ‘capital gains’. The AO has disallowed brought forward loss to the extent of PMS charges disallowed in earlier year. Since, the ITAT has allowed PMS charges against income from capital gains, the loss claimed by the assessee including PMS charges in the earli…

NADIR A MODI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 11(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

…tune of Rs.25,86,320/- paid for portfolio management scheme rendered is allowable as deduction while computing the deduction under the head capital gains and specifically in view of the law settled in DCIT Vs. KRA Holding and Trading (P.) Ltd. and vice versa 46 SOT 19 (Pune) and Serum International Ltd. Vs. Addl CIT and vice versa (ITA No.1576/PN/2012 and 1617/PN/2012) dated 18th February, 2015 and RDA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT ITA No.2166/PN/2013 dated 29th October, 2014. ITA No.2996/M/10 & 4859.M.12 A.Y. 2005-06 7. However it is also argued that there are some contrary decision of the Tribunal…

NADIR A. MODI,MUMBAI vs. JT.CIT-11(3), MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.2996/Mum/2010 & 4859/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) बनाम/ Shri Nadir A. Modi Joint Commissioner Of Office No.111, Income Tax 11(3) Vs. Prospect Chamber, Mumbai Dr. D.N.Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaqpm8991C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

…tune of Rs.25,86,320/- paid for portfolio management scheme rendered is allowable as deduction while computing the deduction under the head capital gains and specifically in view of the law settled in DCIT Vs. KRA Holding and Trading (P.) Ltd. and vice versa 46 SOT 19 (Pune) and Serum International Ltd. Vs. Addl CIT and vice versa (ITA No.1576/PN/2012 and 1617/PN/2012) dated 18th February, 2015 and RDA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT ITA No.2166/PN/2013 dated 29th October, 2014. ITA No.2996/M/10 & 4859.M.12 A.Y. 2005-06 7. However it is also argued that there are some contrary decision of the Tribunal…

ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI vs. SACHIN R. TENDULKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit 19(3), Shri Sachin R. Tendulkar, R.No.305, 3Rd Floor, 19-A Perry Rd, बनाम/ Pirmal Chanbers, Bandra (E) Vs. Parel Mumbai-400050 Mumbai-400012 (Revenue) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapt4135B Revenue By Shri Ta Khan (Dr) Respondent By Shri Jitendra Jian (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 25 /01/2017

…by him on the following Judgments: 1. Nalin Pravin Shah (1575/Mum/2012) Mumbai 2. Nalini Navin Bhagwat (53/Mum/20 10) Mumbai 3. Radha Birju Patel (5382/Mum/2009) Mumbai 4. ARA Trading (13 Taxrnann.com 20) Pune 5. Apoorva Patni (54 SOT 9) Pune 6. KRA Trading (46 SOT 19) Pune 7. Janak S Rangwala (11 SOT 627) Mumbai 8 Sachin R. Tendulkar 11. We have gone through the orders passed by the lower authorities and submissions made and evidences brought before us by both the sides as well as judgments relied upon by the AO, Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. Counsel of the assessee before us. It has been noted by us at the very…

SAURASHTRA FUELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA No 7274/Mum/2012 for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

…of Rs.11,55,354/- is an allowable expenditure while computing short term capital gains and the AO erred in disallowing the same. The assessee company relied upon decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in case of KRA Holdings and Trading Private Limited (2011) 54 SOT 493 (Pune Trib. ) to contend that the PMS expenses are allowable expenses while computing capital gains on sale of shares as these expenses are incurred for sale and purchase of securities. The assessee company submitted that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are invoked for the purposes of disallowance on the grounds that tax was not deducte…

J.M. FINANCIAL & INVESTMENT CONSULANCY SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

…Global Assets Holding Corporation Ltd. [ITA No.4738/Mum/2010; Bench - "G"; Order dated 27th July, 2011] c) Pratibha Paliwal v. ACIT 11 ITR (Trib) 586 (Del) d) S. Balan alias Shanmugam v/ DCIT (2009) 120 ITD 469 (Pun) e) DCIT v. KRA Holding & Trading (P.) Ltd. 54 SOT 493 (Pun e) - Portfolio management fees paid by the assessee was to be allowed as deduction while computing capital gains arising from sale of shares. f) CIT v. Sri Hariram Hotels P. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 136 (Karn) g) Smt. Neera Jain v. ACIT [ITA No. 18611Muml2009; Decided on 22-2- 2010] 12. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the order of lower author…

KIDUJA SECURIRITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CITY -3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

…uiry with regard to assessee’s claim of deduction of Keyman insurance Policy, therefore, the order of AO cannot be said to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision reported at 295 ITR 282, 26 TTJ 629, 54 SOT 493. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR contended that the AO has not applied his mind nor raised any query with regard to wrong claim of Keyman Insurance Policy against capital gain, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jawah…