9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed:- 4-7-2012 - Shri B. R. Mittal And Shri Rajendra,JJ. Shri H. P. Mahajani Shri P. C. Maurya ORDER Per Rajendra, A. M. Following Grounds of Appeal were filed by the Appellant against the order dated 14-02-2011 of the CIT(A)-5, Mumbai:- i) Learned C.I.T. has erred in not accepting the contention of the Appellant regarding claim for depreciation amounting to Rs. 21,16,062/- on intangible assets acquired in earlier year. ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Appellant contends that the learned C.I.T. has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance u/s 14A in terms of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of GODREJ BOYCE MFG CO. LTD instead of di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred order, ITAT has discussed the issue in length and upheld the order of the CIT(A). As the issue decided by the H Bench is same as the issue for the AY under consideration, so, respectfully following the above mentioned order, we decide Ground No.1 against the assessee. 3. Next Ground is about disallowance of Rs. 34,48,057/- u/s.14A of the I.T.Act,1961 (Act). In course of the assessment proceedings, AO found that the appellant had made investment in equity and had earned tax free income. He made disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D in terms of the decision dt. 20-10-2008 of the ITAT Special Bench, Mumbai in the case Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. Assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. Following the decision of the Hon ble Bomb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS, it could not be allowed without simultaneous deduction of tax at source on the payment, that in the appellant s case, there was no dispute on the fact that the payments were to be subjected to deduction of tax at source, that tax has to be mandatorily deducted at source on a payment attracting the deduction, that it was irrelevant whether or not and when the appellant found the amounts to be payable, that expenditure was also not otherwise allowable as, by appellant s own admission, it had not crystallized during the year, that the expenditure remained unascertainable and accordingly, in terms of mercantile system of accounting and Accounting Standards, it could not be claimed or allowed. He further held that quantification of the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
