Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Pawan Kumar Parmeshwarlal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Pawan Kumar Parmeshwarlal vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (pawan_kumar_14A_personal.pdf)

No s. 14A disallowance for personal tax-free investments if business expenditure not disallowed on ground of being for personal purposes

The assessee, a stock broker & Member of BSE, earned tax-free income by way of dividend, interest on RBI bonds and PPF interest. The assessee claimed that no disallowance u/s 14A could be made as no expenditure was incurred by him to earn the tax-free income as the shares were in the demat account for a long time and dividend was automatically credited to the bank account. The AO disallowed Rs. 20,000 u/s 14A. In appeal, the CIT (A), instead of examining the issue on factual basis, directed that Rule 8D should be applied. On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD allowing the appeal:

The assessee is maintaining separate books of account for the purpose of business. The tax-free investments are in his personal capacity. As the AO has not disallowed any expenditure of personal nature out of the business income, the expenditure claimed in the business of share dealings cannot be correlated to the incomes earned in personal capacity that too on dividend, PPF interest and tax free interest on RBI bonds. Accordingly, the estimation of expenditure of Rs. 20,000 out of business expenditure as being incurred for earning tax free income is not acceptable.

Note: Impliedly, this accepts that (i) there is no presumption that some expenditure is always attributable to exempt income and (ii) that the AO must show the nexus between the exempt income & expenditure & (iii) That the AO cannot make an adhoc disallowance. See also DCIT vs. Jindal Photo Ltd (ITAT Delhi)

Related Posts:

  • ITO vs. Arvind Kumar Jain HUF (ITAT Mumbai) The AO has treated the share transaction as bogus on the plea that SEBI has initiated investigation in respect of Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. The AO further stated that investigation revealed that transaction through M/s Periwal and Co. on the floor of stock exchange was more than 83%. We found…
  • Arun Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank…
  • Sanat Kumar vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) The contention of the assessee that he has purchased the shares through banking channel and as such, when the purchase is genuine then sale cannot be questioned, is not tenable because the entire transaction of sale and purchase is to be seen in entirety in the light of the attending…
  • Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case…
  • Vijay Kumar vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh) The impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on certain other issues, whereas, the case of the assessee was selected for the purpose of limited scrutiny relating to security transactions. The additions made by the Assessing Officer, thus, being exceeding his jurisdiction are not sustainable in the eyes…
  • Rakesh Kumar vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi) There is no agency agreement between the assessee and his dealers/sub-dealers. The agency relationship between the assessee and the cellular operators cannot be inferred or presumed in the transaction between the assessee and his sub-dealers. The reason being the SIM cards, vouchers belonged to the cellular operators/cellular entities and these…

Related Judgements

  1. Mrs. Mudra Nanavati vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The issue of notice under s. 143 (2) I. T. Act within the time limit is mandatory for block assessment proceedings. If notice u/s 143 (2) is issued beyond the time limit, the block assessment order passed u/s 158BC is not valid.Read more ›
  2. DLF Universal vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    S. 45 (3) applies when a capital asset is introduced into a firm as capital contribution. This provision applies also when stock-in-trade is introduced into a firm because the transaction is on the capital account and stock-in-trade does not retain its character as stock-in-trade at the point of time…
  3. Pirojsha Godrej Foundation vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    The recorded reason that the violation of s. 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) by the assessee led the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores to be included in the assessee’s total income is clearly contrary to the legal position that while the assessee may lose exemption u/s 10(23C) for not adhering to…
  4. ADIT vs. Wizcraft International Entertainment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    As Colin Davie was not a performer, his income was not covered under Article 18 of the DTAA but was covered by Article 7 and as the services were rendered outside India and there was no PE, the same was not assessable to tax in India. Even under…
  5. DCIT vs. Maharashtra Seamless Ltd (ITAT Delhi) 

    As the funds were mixed, it is not possible to ascertain whether the investment in tax free bonds is out of the assessee’s own funds. The source of investment in the tax free bonds was not identified. The AO did not establish any nexus between the borrowed funds and…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*