TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 24(1) of the IT Act to the tune of Rs. 4,25,24,212/- ignoring the fact that leasing of immovable properties is business activity of the assessee? (B) : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,92,002/- by treating the lass incurred by the assessee on future and option as "speculative"in the absence of the evidence of complying the conditions as specified in proviso (d) to section 43(5) of the IT Act ?" ISSUE No. A 3. The Ld. AR pointed out that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t claimed deduction on account of municipal taxes, salary and personal administrative charges. He also placed reliance of decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Messers Neha Builders Vs. CIT, 226 ITR 661 holding that where assessee is engaged in business of development, construction, sale and lease of movable property, the same is business and not rental income. Ld. Sr. DR also placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc. Dowell and Company Ltd. Vs. CTO 154 ITR 148(SC). 6. Ld. AR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order with the submission that the facts in the case of M/s Neha Builder Vs. CIT (Supra) were different hence it is not relevant in the present case. He submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-I of the Act and there is no change in facts and circumstances of the case as in the earlier years too the income from letting out has been returned and assessed under the head "income from house property". Before the Ld. CITA, the assessee has cited several decisions in support, out of which in the, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Scindia Potteries (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(2002) 253 ITR 168 (Del), the assessee had derived rental income by letting out its godowns. It claimed that it should be treated as business income and not its income from house property. The ITO, however, found that the assessee was renting business of manufacturing Pottery till 1972 - 73, where after business was stopped and the godown were let out to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofit of shares of branch at Rs. 1,88,32,896/-. The AO held that the loss on future and option is intraday and cannot be set of against the business income as it is in the nature of speculative loss which cannot be set of against the business income. He observed from the working sheet of the future and option transaction carried out by Messers pace Financial Services that the purchase and sale has been made on the same date in respect of same shares in the same contract note without any delivery being taken. The AO accordingly treated the claimed loss of Rs. 1,73,92,002/- as speculation loss and allowed to be the carried forward to subsequent assessment year to be set of against speculation profit. The Ld. CIT(A) has, however, allowed the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd ACIT Vs. Hiren Jaswantrai Shah (2011) 46 SOT 276 (Ahd.), before the Ld. CIT(A), on which Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon, has been held that derivatives transaction would be eligible for being treated as nonspeculative transaction within the meaning of Clause (d) of proviso to section 43(5) of the Act. Under these background, we are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance of the claimed loss of Rs. 1,73,92,002. The issue no. B is, thus, decided in favour of the assessee. In the result the appeal is dismissed. ITA No. 695/Del/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) 13. The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds : "1. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,51,32,184/- made by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly rejected. 15. Ground no. 3 : The Ld. AR at the outset of hearing pointed out the issue raised is covered by the order dated 12.3.2014 of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Messers Atiria Partners, ITA No. 2490/Del/2012 (AY2008- 09). In this regard, he referred contains of para no. 14 of the order. 16. In support of the ground the Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the assessment order. 17. Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the AO disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 7,06200/- claimed by the assessee against income from other sources. The assessee had declared income from other sources amounting to Rs. 80,46,782/-. The total expenses of Rs. 12,07,029 was claimed out of ....