TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ketan Parekh Group of cases and was engaged in share broking and share trading and investment in share trading securities till 2004. The assessee claimed reduction in value of shares to the extent of Rs.58,420/- as loss in P&L Account. There were no sale of shares during the year as the assessee's business was stopped because of suspension of trading in securities of this company on 21.12. 2004 for the reason that the assessee is not having any business activity and the loss resulting on account of difference in valuation of shares was not allowed. 2.1 It was submitted that loss was being allowed to the assessee by the orders of the ITAT in assessee's own case in earlier years as well as in case of group concern on similar facts. Whether ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had deducted tax and has paid belatedly. Amount of Rs.12,025/- was paid to Advocate Dhruva & Company. The amount was less than Rs.20,000/- therefore, there is no need for deducting tax. Accordingly, it was submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. However, CIT(A) confirmed the same. 3.1 After considering the rival contentions, we are of the view that the AO and the CIT(A) erred in mixing up the facts. As far as fees of Rs.2,39,875/-, there was TDS which was paid belatedly. Even though AO mentioned the same, he did not disallow the amount of Rs.2,39,875/- . Only disallowance in the order is Rs.12,025/- paid to advocate on which provisions of sec. 194J are not applicable as the amount was less than Rs.20....