TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e looked after by an official named Mr.Hemant Agarwal, who resigned after completion of hearing with Ld CIT(A). It was further stated that a staff named BipinKumar Pathak, who is in-charge of delivering of letters placed the appellate order in the table of Mr.Hemant Agarwal and hence the same remained unattended. Subsequently, when the director made enquiries about the appellate order, the above facts came to light and immediately thereafter, the present appeal has been filed. We heard Ld D.R. Having regard to the submissions made in the affidavit, we are of the view that there was reasonable cause for the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee is disput....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur of the assessee by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of The CIT Vs. M/s The Stock and Bond Trading Company (ITA No.4117 of 2010 dated 14.10.2011). A perusal of the said order shows that the High Court has followed its earlier decision rendered in the case of "The Income tax Commissioner, Mumbai City-4 Vs. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd in Income tax Appeal (L) No.475 of 2011 dated 28-07-2011 to hold that the there is no requirement to deduct tax at source from the payments made to NSE/BSE towards VSAT charges and Lease line charges. The ld. AR submitted that in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd, the Bombay High Court did not consider VSAT and lease-line charges issue. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules. 9. Admittedly, the AO has disallowed a sum of Rs. 63,848/- in respect of Administrative expenses by applying the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. The decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd (supra) would cover only the interest disallowance that is required to be made u/s 14A of the Act. Before tax authorities, it appears that the assessee did not make any specific submissions against disallowance made u/s Rule 8D(2)(iii) relating to administrative expenses. Hence, we confirm the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 10. The remaining issue relates to the disallowance of claim of set off of loss incurred in cash segment against the profit earned in F & O segm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. 11. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the decision of the AO by observing that the assessee has deliberately managed the incurring of expenses in order to reduce the business income to lower than the amount of dividend income, even though the dividend income was offered under the head Business. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KNC Shares & Securities (P) Ltd (ITA No.7420 & 6782/M/03 dated 22.8.2006), where in it was held that the assessee was not entitled to set off loss arising from purchase and sale of shares against income from brokerage. 12. The Ld A.R submitted that the loss incurred by the assessee in cash segment is covered by the exception given in clause (c) given in the proviso to sec. 43(5) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aning thereby, the same shall not override the proviso to sec. 43(5) of the Act. Hence, as per the decision of Kolkatta bench of Tribunal in the case of M/s Arena Textiles & Industries Ltd (supra), the loss from cash segment can be set off against the profit from derivatives. Thus, after computing the Gross Total Income in the above said manner, the application of provisions of Explanation to sec.73 is required to be examined. 15. In view of the above, the approach of the AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) cannot be upheld. Hence, in our view, the application of Explanation to sec. 73 needs to be examined afresh by duly considering the methodology discussed above at the end of the AO. Before us, the Ld A.R raised a fresh contention, viz., the tra....