AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order. ITA No.2304/PN/2012 (By Assessee) : 2. In Ground of appeal No.1 the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 2,29,750/- on account of provision made for Leave Encashment on accrual basis. 2.1 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the above ground is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sister concern namely Serum Institute of India Ltd. In view of the above, the first ground by the assessee is dismissed. 3. In Ground of appeal No.2 the assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs. 5,74,397/- u/s.14A made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). 3.1 The Ld. Counsel for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer has not allowed the same for the reasons discussed in the assessment order which has been quoted in para 5.1 above. As against that the claim has been made by the appellant that these are part of the activity of share investment and the payment made are required to be reduced from the sale consideration or added to the cost, as the case may be. The appellant has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Pune given in the case of KRA Holdings & Trading Pvt. Ltd. and Yashmin Mody, quoted supra. It is a fact that the finding of the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid case by disallowing the PMS charges, under the head capital gains, though confirmed by my predecessor in the case of KRA Holdings & Trading Pvt. Ltd has been allowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgment of ITAT in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Raghupati Singhania (ITAT Kolkatta) ITA No. 1761/Kol/2010. 4. The Appellant prays that the order of the Ld CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer's order may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any of the above grounds raised, any other grounds at the time of proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal which may please be granted". 7. The Ld counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding and Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and vice-versa vide ITA No.703/PN/2012 & ITA No.665/PN/2012 order dated 19-09-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue vide order dated 31st May, 2011 (supra). However, the CIT(A) noticed that subsequently Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of one Shri Homi K. Bhabha vs. ITO in ITA No. 3287/Mum/2009 decided a similar issue against the assessee and therefore he held the issue against the assessee. In view of the aforesaid, assessee is in further appeal before us. 11. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that similar stand of the CIT(A) in the assessee's own case for assessment year 2007-08 came up before the Tribunal in ITA No. 356 & 240/PN/2011 dated 25.07.2012 and after considering the divergent view of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Homi K. Bhabha (supra) which has been relie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to ENAM Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. while computing the income under the head 'Capital Gains'. After noticing the aforesaid the Tribunal concluded as under in para 11 of its order dated 25.07.2012 : "11. The decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Homi K. Bhabha vs. ITO was brought to our notice by the learned DR wherein it was held that Portfolio Management Scheme fees is not deductible against capital gains. The decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KRA Holding & Trading was not followed by the Mumbai Bench in the above cited decision. The Mumbai Bench following other decisions of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal declined to follow the decision in the case of KRA Holding & T....