AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 1388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,48,506/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The assessee in the present case is a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading of computer software and mobile phones. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 22.09.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.20,49,919/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made substantial investment in shares, the income of which was exempt from tax. Since no disallowance on account of expenses incurred in relation to the said investment was offered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D to work out such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by deleted". 5. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. Representatives of both the sides, this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Ashika Global Securities Limited (supra), wherein it was held that no disallowance under section 14A is warranted when no exempt income has been actually earned by the assessee during the relevant year. Since no exempt income was actually earned by the assessee in the present case during the year under consideration, we respectfully follow the said decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and uphold the impugned order of the ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of the appellant and the findings of the AO. The AO has not brought anything on record to show that the software was not used for the business purposes of the assessee. In the written submissions the appellant has elaborated on the purposes for which the software had been utilised. Further, the AO himself has allowed depreciation on the software in the AYr.2013-14. On the same set of facts there can be no case for deviation on the stand taken by the AO in the earlier year. It has not been shown by the AO that there was any material difference in the facts in the impugned order. Depreciation has been allowed in AYr.2013-14. This year the allowance of depreciation is only consequential as the assets have already been put to use. Accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In Ground No. 3, the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by treating the share trading loss and commodity derivative trading loss as speculative in nature. 11. In the Profit & Loss Account filed along with the return of income, a loss of Rs.1,42,28,624/- was claimed by the assessee on commodities and share transactions. According to the Assessing Officer, the transactions in commodities were akin to transactions in shares and Explanation to Section 73 was applicable even in case of loss from the commodity transactions. He also noted that the assessee's main source of income was its business income from trading in hardware and software, mobile phones, and investmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vision and the provision contained in S. 73 is specific in nature? On the contrary, the object of sub-s (5) of S. 43 is to define 'speculative business'. It would appear that the activities appearing in cls.(a) to (e) of proviso to s. 43(5) are not to be deemed to be speculative transactions. Therefore, this comes within the category of deemed business which is however distinct and separate from any other business. Now, the question is, whether loss arising out of such deemed business can be set off against the profit arising out of other business or business which may for clarity be called proper business. Under s.70, the assessee is entitled to have the loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head unle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me from House property, Capital gains and other sources (Rs.1,56,02,251/-) is more than the income under the head business(Rs.20,49,919/-), it has therefore been contended that the case of the appellant does not fall in the category as stipulated in the explanation to section 73. It is observed in this case that the dominant income has been earned by the appellant under the head other sources. The AIR of the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Eastern Aviation & Industries 208 ITR( 1 023) for the proposition that where the main business of the assessee does not comprise of purchase & sale of the share, explanation to section 73 will not apply. In this case, it is observed that the ap....