TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 400
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as reasonable. Thus enhancing disallowance u/ s 14A by resorting to the computational machinery of Rule 8D(2) is bad-in-law and needs to be deleted. 1.2) Without prejudice to the above and without admitting, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that Rule 8D(2)(ii) are applicable to the appellant without appreciating that the investments were made from own funds. Thus disallowance of interest expense (excluding bank guarantee commission and processing charges) u/s 14A being bad-in-law needs to be deleted. 2. Disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 28,91,234/- on sale of shares of BSE Ltd. On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in allowing indexation benefit on shares of BSE Ltd. from the date of acquisition of shares instead of the date on which the corresponding BSE Cards were acquired. The said shares were allotted to the appellant on account of conversion of BSE cards into shares pursuant to demutualization of stock exchange. Accordingly the disallowance of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 28,91,234/- is bad-in-law and must be deleted. 3. The appellant company craves ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'has' to' satisfy his, part 'of the contractual obligation with the stock exchanges within two days subsequent' to the transaction' date. "The A.O. rejected the said explanation holding that the sums sought to be written off have never been taken into account for computing the income of the assessee, further, the amount is not allowable as business loss either. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A) allowed assessee's claim after having following observation:- 6.2 I have considered the matter and as per record, the said issue has been held in favour of the appellant in the earlier years. To quote from the for A.Y, 2007-08: "I have gone through the issue. The Hon'ble ITAT* Special Bench's decision in the case of Shreyas Morakhia ITA No. 3374/Mum -4 for A.Y. 1998-99 order dated 16.07.2010 is in favour of the appellant. The Hon'ble ITAT Special Bench has also held as follows:- 32. Keeping in view all the facts of the case and the legal position emanating from the various judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the view that the amount receivable by the assessee, who is a share broker, from his clients against the transactions of purc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the appellant, this ground is held in favour of the appellant. It is held that VSAT is entitled to depreciation at 60%. 9. CIT(A) has relied upon his order for A.Y.2007-08 to A.Y.2010-11. The issue is covered in favour of assessee vide orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Ys. 2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21/01/2015 and A.Y.2008-09 to 2010-11 in ITA No.4581/Mum/2012, 7328/Mum/2011 and 6204/Mum/2013 dated 19/02/2016. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). 10. With regard to deleting the addition of Rs. 2,60,86,082/-, the assessee had incurred net loss on account of Vanda transaction, amounting to Rs. 2,60,86,982/-. According to the assessee, such loss incurred when the clients disowned the transaction undertaken by the Broker. This occurred when there might be trade errors while executing the orders by the Broker or the client might fail to satisfy its contractual obligation. Such obligation which the broker had to compulsorily undertake was transferred to Vanda / Error account which could result into net profit/lo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax Act which is obligatory on part of the assessee to follow in order to compute the total income. f. The appellant relies on the following decisions ;- CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. 312 ITR 254 (SC) Rotork Control India P. Ltd. vs. CIT (2009) 314 ITR 62 DCIT vs. Bank of Bahrain I.T.No. 4404 & 1883/Mum/2004. 9.3. The appellant further submitted that the said losses' has been incurred in the course of the business of trading in shares wherein it hedges position in the 'cash segment with that in the futures segment. Accordingly, these losses would also not be considered as speculative in nature since hedging is specifically excluded from the ambit of the definition of "speculative transaction" vide section 43(5)(d). 13.1. The assessee further stated that both the decisions relied on by the A.O. has been dealt with by the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Woodward (supra). The said decision of the Delhi High Court has been upheld. by the Supreme Court in. CIT vs. Woodward Governor India P Ltd. 312 ITR 254 (SC). This is relied on by the assessee in the instant case. Lastly, the assessee relied on the orders of the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... had purchased entire retail clientele business of a company for a certain consideration. The assessee therein booked these expenses as purchase of goodwill and claimed depreciation therein under. s. 32(1)(ii). It was held that the purchase of clientele business was a right which could be used as a tool to carry on business and therefore eligible for depreciation on the payments made, since it falls within the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar matter" used in section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts in the case of the appellant being similar to the facts of the above cited case, the A.O. is directed to allow depreciation on the acquisition of customer rights. The depreciation claim of Rs. 54,06,776/- is accordingly allowed. 18. We have considered rival contentions. AO relied on his order for A.Y.2007-08. The issue is covered in favour of assessee vide orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y.2007-08 in ITA No.168/Mum/2011 dated 21/01/2015 and A.Y.2008-09 to 2010-11 in ITA No.4581/Mum/2012, 7328/Mum/2011 and 6204/Mum/2013 dated 19/02/2016. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to....