The First Issue Is Covered By The Decision Of The Division Bench Of This Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Hence, No Substantial Question Law Arises. Appeal Is Dismissed

SKN 1/2 1265.15-itxa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2015 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-4.…Appellant.V/s.M/s.IDFC Securities Pvt.Ltd.…Respondent. Mr.Ashok Kotangale with Mr.Prabhakar Ranshur i/b. Padma Divakarfor the appellant.Mr.Hiro Rao with Mr.Dharam Gandhi i/b. Mr.S.S.Shetty & Hiro Raifor the respondent. CORAM :A.S.OKA AND A.K.MENON, JJ.DATE :29[th] November 2017. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has pressed into service to substantial questions of law, which read thus: “6.1 Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D2(ii) is not applicable in the present case where the assessee incurred expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt?in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D2(ii) is not applicable in the present case where the assessee incurred expenditure by way of interest which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt? 6.2Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the loss incurred insale and purchase of shares being speculative in nature by virtue of explanation of section 73 of Income Tax Act as business loss as claimed by the assessee?”law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in allowing the loss incurred insale and purchase of shares being speculative in nature by virtue of explanation of section 73 of Income Tax Act as business loss as claimed by the assessee?” SKN 2.The first issue is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. HDFC Bank Ltd.[1]. Even the second question is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 25[th] July 2017 in Income Tax Appeal No.115/2015 (The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 v. M/s.IDFC SSKI Securities Pvt.Ltd.). In fact, it is pointed out that this decision is in the case of the respondent- assessee itself which has undergone change in the name. 3Hence, no substantial question law arises. Appeal is dismissed. (A.K.MENON, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)