The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5259 (Ahd-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH

P.P. BHATT, PRESIDENT & WASEEM AHMED, A.M.

DCIT v. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.

I.T.A. No(s). 413, 445, 268, 318, 446/Ahd/2016

3 December, 2020

Revenue Dismissed.

Assessee(s) by: Vartik Chokshi, AR

Revenue by: Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

ORDER

Waseem Ahmed, A.M.

In this bunch of appeals two appeals have been filed by the assessee and two appeals have been filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 which are arising from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad Orders, dated 11-12-2015, in the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

First we take up ITA No. 413/Ahd/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 (Revenue's Appeal):

2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :--

'1. That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of depreciation on membership card without appreciation the fact that condition under section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not fulfilled on the said depreciation.

(2) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of depreciation, interest and insurance on vehicle amounting to Rs. 29,64,082 by ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to prove the ownership of these vehicles as well as use of those assets wholly and exclusively for the business purpose.

(3) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,12,972 made by assessing officer as disallowance of interest without appreciating the fact that conditions laid down in section 36 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not fulfilled by the assessee.

(4) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 24,75,967 made by the assessing officer under section 14A without considering the fact that the assessing officer has rightly disallowed the same under section 14A after considering the provisions of Rule 8D, which is not fulfilled in the assessee's case.

(5) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,51,201 made by the assessing officer as disallowance of expenditure for payment of penalty without appreciating the fact that the conditions of provisions under section 37 are not fulfilled by the assessee.

(6) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by deleting addition of Rs. 1,18,89,628 made by the assessing officer as disallowance of deduction of Bad Debts by ignoring the fact that the condition of provisions of section 36(2) are not satisfied in the assessee's case.

(7) That the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts by allowing the contention of assessee for verification of part disallowance of Rs. 17,02,013 made by the assessing officer as disallowance of Saudafer Loss by ignoring the fact that whole Saudafer Loss claimed by the assessee was Speculation Loss within the meaning of explanation to section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT