TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evant to the ground itself. 2) The learned CIT(A) erred in relying on vague and incorrect figures which are in no way related to the ground. 3) The learned CIT(A) failed to consider the crux of the issue which was whether income from sale of shares and units was to be treated as income from capital gain or income from business which is covered by earlier years' orders for Asst. Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has accepted the income is chargeable under the head Capital Gains. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the main issue in question, i.e., whether the income of Rs.9,73,045/- should be income from capital gain or income from business. Ground No. 2 - Deduction of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 37 (1): 1) Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the at hoc allowance of only Rs.5,00,000/- as against actual expenses of Rs.76.94,648/-against income from business. 2) The CIT(A) erred in restricting the allowance on a pro rata basis without any valid explanation. 3) The CIT(A) failed to consider that Section 37(1) does not provide for proportionate allowance of business expenses. The main condition to be satisfied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here was no specific query raised in this regard during the appellate proceedings. 4) The learned CIT(A) failed to consider that in A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 also, buy back of shares had taken place and was duly accepted and no addition was made in this regard. 5) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming this disallowance on the false and baseless assumption that the entire buy back of shares was devised to evade taxes. The learned CIT(A) has shown nothing on record which proves the contention of tax evasion. 6) The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the fact that section 115QA was introduced vide Finance Act, 2013, effective only from A.Y. 2014-15. The fact that Section 115QA was not applicable to the appellant company cannot be ruled out on a false surmise that the buyback of shares was devised for tax evasion. The Appellant Company craves leave to add, alter or amend the Grounds of Appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal." Brief facts of the case 2. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the addition was made in related to Rs.9,73,045/- on account of capital gain which was claimed by the assessee. But the AO had treat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1 of the Assessee 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued and filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel first point out the order of the ld. CIT(A) in para no. 6 which is reproduced as below: "6. Decision: I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the assessee. It is seen from the facts available on record that the assessee is a private limited company and engaged in the business of shares and securities etc. The assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2014 declaring total loss of Rs 6,08,30,359/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. observed that the assessee has shown loss of Rs 1,93,86,608/- from business other than loss from speculative business and specified business in ITR whereas the assessee has shown Rs 39,79,700/- of income from other sources and no business loss as mentioned in ITR is reflected in the Computation of income. After elucidation of the facts and consideration of the submission filed by the assessee, the A.O. completed the scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2016 by disallowing business loss of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antage of taxation by making plea of systemic error of adjustment of carry forward business loss for setting off against income of succeeding years in the ROI before the AO when the case is selected for scrutiny. The assessee has neither filed revised return of income nor brought the discrepancy to the notice of the AO or CPC. The assessee has a huge brought forward business loss from AY 2006-07 onwards to be set off against income of future years. However, the assessee has not submitted whether it faced the same discrepancy while filing return of income in any earlier years. Considering the totality of facts and submissions filed by the assessee, it is decided that the AO has a clear and unambiguous finding that the appellant would have got the benefit of carrying forward business loss of Rs 1,93,86,608/- to subsequent years under the head business and profession (non-speculative) and disallowance of business loss of Rs.2,16,26,458/- is confirmed. Therefore, this ground of appeal is therefore dismissed." 3.1 The ld. Counsel mention that the observation of the ld. CIT(A) is irrelevant. The counsel relied that the loss on capital gain was brought forwarded from earlier years. The i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30,04,987/-) effectively. The ld. CIT(A) disallowed the assessee's claim in the ground that the assessee had not deducted TDS amount to Rs 613,789/- on payment of interest which is contravening the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appellant during the hearing unable to bring to details calculation related claim of Section 57(iii) in respect income from other sources. The ld. CIT. Dr only relied on order of the revenue authorities. In our opinion the claim of deduction U/s 57(iii) should be allowed amount of Rs.49,275/-(Rs. 663,064/- - Rs. 613,789/-) 4.1. Accordingly Ground no-3 is partly allowed. Adjudication of Ground No-4 of the Assessee 5. In Ground No-4, the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued and first pointed out in the order, the AO for relevant para 6.13 which is extracted as below: "6.13. Therefore, the amount payable by the assessee company would be taxable in India and assessee company is required to withhold tax on the proposed remittance of the proceeds. The assessee has not brought anything on record to show that withholding tax has been deducted on payment made to Non-Resident Indian. In view of the failure on the part of the assessee to deduct with....