TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal clarifies expenditure disallowance & trading losses treatment, provides guidance on tax matters</h1> <h3>ITO 16 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Manish S. Mehta</h3> ITO 16 (1) (1), Mumbai Versus Manish S. Mehta - Tmi Issues Involved:1. Disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D.2. Treatment of loss from trading of futures and options as business loss rather than speculative loss.Issue 1 - Disallowance of Expenditure:The appeal involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of expenditure to earn exempt income. The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D, while the CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to a lesser amount. The revenue contended that the CIT(A) incorrectly assessed the expenditure without applying the relevant provisions. The CIT(A) had not properly applied Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D and failed to consider whether the assessee used their own funds to earn the exempt income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was incorrect as there was no proper application of the provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s finding and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.Issue 2 - Treatment of Loss:The second appeal concerned the treatment of loss from trading of futures and options. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the records regarding the loss and allow it as a business loss instead of a speculative loss. The revenue argued that the claim was not raised in the return and cited a previous court decision. However, the Tribunal noted that the AO had previously allowed the claim for similar years and held the income from such activities as business income. The Tribunal found that the mistake was apparent on record and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the loss as a business loss. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.Conclusion:The Tribunal's judgments addressed the issues of disallowance of expenditure to earn exempt income and the treatment of loss from trading activities. The first appeal resulted in the CIT(A)'s decision being set aside for reconsideration by the Assessing Officer. In the second appeal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the loss as a business loss. The third appeal was withdrawn by the assessee. Overall, the Tribunal's decisions provided clarity on the application of relevant provisions and the treatment of specific types of income and losses.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
