TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1152
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in passing the order dated 04.01.2013 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "of the Act"] confirming the action of the A.O. in making following additions and disallowances without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs. ) A Disallowance of under section 14A 1,32,944/- B Addition of Income from other sources 49,71,900/- A. Disallowance of under section 14A -Rs. 1,32,944/- 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making disallowance of Rs. 1,32,944/- under section 14A of the Act by invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are not leviable." 3. The brief facts of the case are the at the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 16.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 49,37,912/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short "the Act"). Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s.143(2) dated 18.08.2010 was issued and served upon the assessee. Further, notice u/s.142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer assessed the expenditure to earn the exempt income to the tune of Rs. 3,98,012/- whereas the assessee disallowed the expenditure to the tune of Rs. 2,65,068 and added the difference to the tune of Rs. 1,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n view of the other provisions of the section 14A read with Rule 8D of the act. On appraisal of the order passed by the Assessing Officer we found nothing ambiguity for the application of the Rule 8D of the Act for calculation of the expenses to earn the exempt income. The Assessing Officer has assessed the expenditure in view of the facts and circumstances of the case wherein no specific expenditure has been shown to be explained to earn exempt income. Therefore, in the said circumstances the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue which does not require to be interfere with at this appellate stage. ISSUE NO.5 & 6:- 5. The assessee has challenged the addition of income from other sources to the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the asset itself is not owned by the appellant, the question of capital gains in the hand of the appellant does not arise. The above facts clearly prove that the asset belong to the firm and not to the appellant. Therefore, the capital gain cannot be assessed in the hand of the appellant. However, since the amount has been credited in the books of the appellant, this is undoubtedly income in his hands. It is not a case where capital gain is offered in the hands of the firm by filing a revised return. Thus, it is not a case of double taxation. The gain/income has to be taxed at some place - either in the case of firm or in the case of appellant. As no income has been offered in case of firm M/s.Ashok L .Shah, this income is rightly taxe....