LATIN MANHARLAL SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 (3), MUMBAI

MA 428/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5654 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule 8D
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND S/SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. N O . 428 M/201 8 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 680 /MUM/201 6 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) LATIN MANHARLAL SECURITIES P. LTD. 5 TH FLOOR, 124 VIRAJ BLDG, S.V. ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI - 400052 . / VS. ACIT - 4(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020. / . / . PAN/GIR NO. : AAACL2767L ( / APPELLANT ) / APPLICANT .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING: 29 .0 3 .201 9 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 . 05 . 2019 ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF THE MISCELLA N EOUS APPLICATION BEARING NO. 428/M/2018 MOVED BY APP LICANT ARISING OUT OF ITA. NO. 680 /M/1 6 FOR THE A.Y.2010 - 11 DECIDED ON DATED 29 . 05 .201 8 . 2. IT IS AVERRED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE HONBLE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ITA. NO.680/M/2016 FOR THE A.Y.2010 - 11 BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT TOOK THE PLEA THAT THE SHARE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 14A R.W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO GIVEN HIS WORKING ON THE ISSUE . T HE HONBLE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT IN ART GALLERY AND IN SUBSIDIARY COMPANY SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. BUT THIS HONBLE BENCH HAS NOT MENTION ED ABOUT THE EXCLUSION OF SHARES HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE, REVENUE BY: SHRI ABI RAMA KARTIKIYEN (DR) ASSESSEE BY: S HRI RAJIV WAGLE (AR) MA 428 / MUM/201 8 THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, HENCE, THE ORDER REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFI ED TO THIS EXTENT THAT THE SHARE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUDED WHILE CALCULATING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80D(2)(III) OF THE ACT. 2. NOTICE GIVEN. 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ON APPRAISAL OF THE FINDING, WE NOTICED THAT THE MATTER OF CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. ANY CHANGE ON MERITS NOWHERE COMES WITH THE PROVISIO NS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, 1961. MOREOVER, REQUIRED RECTIFICATION WOULD TANTAMOUNT REVIEW OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOWHERE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED, THEREFORE, WE DISMISSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN THE RESULT , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED . ORDER WAS PRON OUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 24 .05 .2019 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 24 . 05 .2019 VIJAY COPY TO : 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) 4 . THE CIT 5 . THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, A , BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES