TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 1143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessing officer (AO) read as under : "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in directing to assess the Rent & Service Charges as income under the head "Business or Profession" against "income from house property" taxed by A.O. 2. The LD. CIT (A) further erred in directing to allow maintenance expenses of Rs. 19,500/- disallowed by the A.O. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) is justified in rejecting the A.O.'s working of expenses u/s. 14A as per rule 8D by observing that jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. has decided this issue that rule 8D will ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Crores were treated as income from house property. After treating the said sum as income from house property he allowed the assessee deduction as per the provisions of section 24a (@ 30%) of the Act. Assessee had claimed Rs. 19,500/- as repair and maintenance expenses. AO disallowed the claim holding that after allowing the deduction u/s.24a of the Act, no further deduction was allowable. 3. On appeal, First Appellate Authority (FAA) deleted the addition made by the AO. He held that, like earlier AY, income from the property-in-question should be assessed as business-income, that assessee was entitled to claim, made by it for the repair and maintenance expenses, amounting to Rs. 19,500/-. 4. Before us, Departmental Representative (DR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO are allowed. 6. Next ground of appeal is about disallowance made u/s.14A of the Act for expenditure attributable to the exempted income by applying Rule 8 D of Income-tax Rules,1962. During the assessment proceedings AO found that the assessee had claimed Dividend income of Rs. 25.38 lakhs as exempt income u/s.10(34) of the Act. Assessee was asked to furnish details of expenses relatable to these exempt incomes vis-à-vis provisions of section 14A of the Act. AO was not satisfied with the explanation filed by the assessee in this regard. He made an addition of Rs. 5.58 lakhs to the total income of the income as per the provisions of Sec.14A of the Act r.w. rule 8D. Assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee had paid PMF to Kotak Securities and Merryn Lines. He held that the expenditure could not be allowed, that assessee is not engaged in the business of dealing in shares, that claim of the assessee had to rejected as per the provisions of section 40A and 112. Assessee-company preferred an appeal before the FAA. After considering the submissions of the assessee he held that the appellant's income arose from the share-transaction, that there was no provision for allowing PMF under the head capital gains. 8.1. Before us, AR submitted that issue was covered in favour of the assessee as per the decision of A Bench of Pune ITAT delivered on 25.07.2012 in the case of KRA Holding & Trading Pvt. Ltd. DR submitted that matter was d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed upon by the Pune Bench to decide the issue in favour of the assessee; had been considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the subsequent decision rendered in the case of Roshanbabu Mohammed Hussein Merchant (275 ITR 231).While deciding the case of Roshanbabu Hon'ble Bombay High Court took notice of the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of RM Arunachalam (227 ITR 222) VS MR Jagadishchandran (227 ITR 240) and Attili N. Rao (252ITR280). After considering the above judgments Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court held that the decision rendered earlier in the case of Shakuntalal Kantilal (supra) was no more a good law in the light of the said decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered subsequently. The Mumbai Ben....