TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 1062
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessment year 2008-09. The appeal raises as many as four issues per an equal number of grounds, and which include sub-grounds as well. We shall proceed in seriatim. 2. The first ground assails the impugned order for treating the income arising on the purchase and sale of shares as business income inasmuch as the shares are stated to be held as investments, so that the income therefrom is liable to be assessed as capital gains. It is further alleged that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has decided the matter per a non-speaking order. 3. During hearing, it was at the outset informed by the learned authorised representative ("AR" in short), the assessee's counsel, on an enquiry by the Bench, that the issue stands de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had not incurred any administrative expenses for the purpose of earning dividend income, which is at Rs. 4.51 lakhs for the current year (refer paper book page 77). As an alternate claim, the assessee's case is that the shares being held as stock-in-trade, the prescription of rule 8D will not apply. The said rule, inasmuch as shares are held as stock-in-trade of its business and, thus, constitute a business asset, becomes inapplicable. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. 5.1. We firstly observe that the onus to show that no expenditure stands incurred in relation to income not forming part of total income lies squarely on the assessee. In fact, the said expenditure may have no correlation, much less direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... consider if fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to allow opportunity to the assessee to present its case before him. The Assessing Officer shall decide the same in accordance with law, keeping in view the afore-referred decisions, per a speaking order. We decide accordingly. 6. The third issue, raised per ground No. 3, is in respect of non-consideration of claim for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), i.e., in respect of tenancy rights of a rented business premises. The assessee's claim of the same being an intangible asset and, accordingly, eligible for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), stands disallowed by the authorities below on the ground of no such claim having been raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n respect of claim for non-grant of rebate under section 88E for Rs. 19,67,634 (i.e., Rs. 12,78,991 on futures and options transactions and Rs. 6,88,643 on share transactions) on account of security transaction tax (STT) paid. A browse of the assessment order (paragraph 4/page 17), however, reveals that the Assessing Officer has in fact allowed rebate under section 88E, the same stating in clear terms which be reproduced as under : "4.1.6 Rebate under section 88E on securities transaction tax paid of Rs. 19,67,634 on these transactions is allowed." The Bench, on seeking clarification in the matter, was informed by the learned autho....