TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Share Broking and Other Related Financial Services. The assessment for the year under consideration was completed by the AO making various disallowances. In the appeals filed before the ld.CIT(A), the First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the assessee in part. Aggrieved by his order, both the parties have filed these appeals appeal before us. 3. First we shall take up the appeal filed by the Revenue. The first issue relates to disallowance of Rs. 5,30,107/-, being depreciation claimed on motor car. The assessee had purchased vehicles in the name of its Director, but disclosed the same as part of its assets. Accordingly, it claimed depreciation on the vehicles. However, the AO disallowed the depreciation on the reasoning that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 10,05,297/-. The AO disallowed the bad debt claimed by the assessee on the reasoning that the assessee has not declared the same as its income in the earlier years. The ld.CIT(A), however, allowed the claim of the assessee by following the decision of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DCIT V/s SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA [2010] 40 SOT 432 (ITAT[Mum]).The ld.CIT(A) also noticed that an identical disallowance made in the assessment year 2006-07 has been deleted by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in assessee's own case. 4.1 At the time of hearing, the ld.AR pointed out that the decision rendered by the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... items had been included in Software and web development expenditure. The ld.CIT(A) disallowed the claim of Rs. 5,08,509/- referred above. However, the ld.CIT(A) took the view that the assessee has been consistently claiming the software web development expenditure at higher level over the years and accordingly disallowed 20% of the expenses, holding the same as excessive and unreasonable and allowed the remaining amount. 5.1 The ld. DR submitted that the software development expenditure should be treated as capital expenditure and hence the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in allowing part of the same as revenue expenditure. 5.2 On the contrary, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee, being a share broker, is required to continuously updat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal has considered an identical issue in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06 passed in ITA NO.4347/Mum/2009 and 4033/Mum/2009 dated 4.6.2010. We notice that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has deleted an identical disallowance made in the assessment year 2005-06 by following the decision rendered in the case of VRM Share Broking (P) Ltd (supra). Under these set of facts, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 7. Now, we shall take up the appeal filed by the assessee. The first issue contested by the assessee relates to the disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 4,65,945/- under section 14A by applying the provisions of Rule 8D. The l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO is directed to take appropriate decision after hearing the assessee. 9. The next issue contested by the assessee relates to disallowance of Bombay Stock Exchange Card Amortization expenditure of Rs. 6,42,500/-. The assessee had amortized 1/10th BSE card and claimed the same as deduction. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the assessee had valued its BSE card at Rs. 65.75 lakhs as per Accounting Standard 26 issued by the ICAI. This amount together with value of equity shares allotted to the assessee in Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd and was disclosed as Investment in Balance-sheet and remaining amount paid for acquisition of card i.e. Rs. 64,25,000 was amortized by the assessee in 10 equal installment beginning from the financial ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has failed to demonstrate us as to how the amortization amount of Rs. 6,42,500/- is allowable as deduction under the Income Tax Act. Hence, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance made by AO. 10. The next issue relates to assessment of "Short Term Capital Gains" arising on sale of shares as business income of the assessee. The assessee declared STCG of Rs. 33,61,813/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has indulged in the intraday transactions and hence resultant profit should be considered as speculative profit. However, the AO treated the above said amount as business income of the assessee and the same was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 10.1 Before us, the ld.AR contended that the....