9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares in which hardly one dividend is received in a year on which no expenditure was incurred - It is quite incomprehensible income claimed to be exempt is huge amount in dividends, and receiving the same in one dividend warrant is improbable - Assessee's grievance not clear - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 6906/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2013 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah And Shri Vivek Varma,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri K. Shivaram For the Respondent : Shri Kalik Singh ORDER Per Vivek Varma, JM:- The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) 25, Mumbai, dated 11.08.2011, wherein the following grounds have been taken: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upheld the decision taken by the Learned DCIT for not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... banks are related to export activities and also entire expenditure as shown in profit and loss account are related to manufacturing and trading activities and nothing is attributable to Investment activities. 2.2 The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that the Appellant is neither a trader nor Investor, however holding on to old Investments in shares of JBF Industries Limited in which hardly one dividend is received in a year on which no expenditure was incurred". 2. The facts in brief are, that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacturing texturized yarn. In the year under consideration, the assessee sold a non agricultural land along with factory shed and electricity connection, situ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to do. In this context, the AR referred to the decisions reported in i) 103 ITD 113 -ITO vs United Marine Academy (Mum-SB); ii) 79 TTJ 573 - Mrs. Sosamma Paulose vs JCIT (Cochin), iii) 212 Taxman 411 - CIT vs Raman Kumar Suri (Bom) The AR pointed out that the order of CIT(A) was infirm, as the CIT(A) did not take into consideration the written submissions dated 18.07.2011 29.07.2011. 7. The DR, placed reliance on the orders of the revenue authorities. 8. On goining through the various details and submissions and the fact that the CIT(A) did not take into consideration the two letters mentioned above, merits the case to be restored to the file of the CIT(A). We are also aware that the issue of valuation, still has the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be exempt is Rs. 2,93,88,575/- in dividends, and receiving the same in one dividend warrant, to our mind is improbable. 18. We have seen the connected grounds with regard to non adjustment of interest expense and other expense, and we also find that the AO has accepted the computation of disallowance, as submitted by the assessee. In such a circumstance, we do not see, as to what grievance, the assessee has, in so far as instant disallowance is concerned. 19. In these circumstances, we reject the ground no. 2 and its sub grounds as in the GOA before us and sustain the orders of the revenue authorities. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th July, 2013. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
