Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Sep 22 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

I .T.O., Chandigarh vs Avinash Singh Grewal  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 15 Sep 2014]

Space Management Limited, Ahmedabad vs DCIT, Ahmedabad  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 12 Sep 2014]

Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs LIC Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Arvind Shamji Chheda vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 12 Sep 2014]

Nahid Bano Khan vs Rafi Ahmed Khan  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]

D.C.I.T., Kolkata vs Kredent Brokerage Services Limited, Kolkata  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]
Income Tax & Direct Taxes - Income Tax-Act, 1961, s. 14A - Disallowance - CIT(A) deleted disallowance of Rs.31,90,231/- made u/s. 14A of the Act - Hence instant appeal by Revenue - Whether the order recorded by CIT(A) was sustainable -

Held, CIT(A) observed that the assessee has submitted that the penalties are in the nature of compensatory expenses which is not for infringement of law but these may be for exceeding the limits for which some amount was to be paid to Stock Exchange as a compensation for exceeding the limit. It was further noted that AO has not brought on record any single sum which is paid for the infringement of law by way of penalty to the Stock Exchange Board of India (SEBI) or other statutory bodies - Therefore, CIT(A) held by following ITO v. GDB Shares and Stock Broking Services Ltd.(2004) and submissions of assessee, the penalty charges paid by the assessee are allowed as expenditure except Rs.1,48,189/- for which the assessee has not given any details. Thus the penalty charge and fine amounting to Rs.4,25,650/- was allowed as expenditure u/s 37(1) of the Act. Tribunal has clearly found that when sum have been paid to Stock Exchange for delay in payment of the dues and for various other obligations arising out of carrying on business activities, the penalty charges cannot be said to be for infringement of any law were paid to compensate for delay in payment of the dues to the Stock Exchange and for various other obligations. There was no infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Appeal dismissed.

Ratio - When the shares are kept on trading account no disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act is called for.


ITO, Udaipur vs Sarfaraj Ahmed  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]

A.C.I.T., Udaipur vs Meena Singh Shekhawat  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 11 Sep 2014]

Krishna Kumar Goenka vs A.C.I.T., Kanpur  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Sep 2014]

Kalika International, Mumbai vs Income Tax officer, Mumbai  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 10 Sep 2014]

CIT vs Central News Agency Private Limited  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 09 Sep 2014]

Hotel Arti Delux Private Limited vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Kanpur  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 09 Sep 2014]

Profile India vs ACIT, Faridabad  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Sep 2014]

D. K. Bhatia vs ACIT, Faridabad  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 09 Sep 2014]

Jcdecaux Advertising India Private Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT, New Delhi  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

ACIT, New Delhi vs Kalinga International, New Delhi  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

Jcdecaux Advertising India Private Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT, New Delhi  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

Income-tax Officer, New Delhi vs Life Line Biotech Limited, New Delhi  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

ACIT, Udaipur vs Nirmal Granites Private Limited, Udaipur  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

Beardsell Eastern Private Limited vs I.T.O, Kolkata  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 08 Sep 2014]

Rajvi Natoobhai Patel, Proprietor Navin Engineering, Vithal Udyognagar vs ITO, Ward-2, Anand  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 05 Sep 2014]

Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Kanpur vs Deputy C. I. T - 1, Kanpur  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 05 Sep 2014]

Anirudh Singh vs ITO, Jaipur  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 05 Sep 2014]

Dy. CIT-4, Kanpur vs Anand Brushes Private Limited, Kanpur  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 05 Sep 2014]

ACIT, New Delhi vs Surendra Buildtech Private Limited, Gurgoan  [INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 05 Sep 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer