TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... :- Expenditure incurred for the said Foundation for training individuals in cricket game could not be held as a business activity of the assessee and therefore, the claim for such allowance was not allowable under Section 37 of the Act - Against the assessee. Disallowance under Section 14A – Held that:- As held in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. DCIT[2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09 – Further In the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles[2009 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] it was held that it could not be taken as a rule that some expenditure was always incurred in respect of the exempt income earned – In this case assessee itself had made a disallowance of Rs. 66,312/- - It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Revenue for assessment years 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 in I.T.A. Nos. 1374 to 1377/Mds/2010 and I.T.A. Nos. 1676 to 1679/Mds/2010 vide order dated 11.3.2011 of this Tribunal. 4. Learned D.R. supported the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and submitted that the issues had to be decided against assessee. 5. We have perused the orders and heard the rival submissions. Insofar as the issue of reopening is concerned, in similar situation, it was held by this Tribunal, in assessee s appeals for assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05, at para 19 of its order dated 11th March, 2011, to which one of us was a party, that re-assessment proceedings initiated were valid, since assessee had failed or not disclosed the facts necessary for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005-06, there are two issues raised therein. First one assails reopening done after four years from the end of the impugned assessment year despite the original assessment having been completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. Second issue is regarding disallowance of expenditure incurred in MRF Pace Foundation. On both these issues, in assessee s appeal for assessment year 2003-04, we have already held against assessee, relying on the order of this Tribunal in I.T.A. Nos. 1374 to 1377/Mds/2010 and I.T.A. Nos. 1676 to 1679/Mds/2010 dated 11.3.2011. 11. Coming to the last appeal which is for assessment year 2008- 09, there are three issues raised by assessee. First is regarding amortization of lease charges paid in respect of leasehold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. DCIT (328 ITR 81) has held that Rule 8D is applicable from assessment year 2008-09. No doubt, Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Hero Cycles (supra) has held that it could not be taken as a rule that some expenditure was always incurred in respect of the exempt income earned. Here, however, we note that the assessee itself had made a disallowance of Rs. 66,312/-. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it cannot now turn around and say that no expenditure whatsoever was incurred for earning the exempt income. As already mentioned, Rule 8D is applicable for impugned assessment year. This being the case, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
