9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -02 - The povision created on account of unidentified Motor Third Party claim will not fall under sub-section 115JB(2) Explanation 1(c) of the I T Act - No addition is required to be made while computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the I.T. Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A Nos. 930 & 931/Kol/2010 - - - Dated:- 10-1-2014 - Shri Mahavir Singh, JM Shri Abraham P. George, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri S. Bhattacharya For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Jain, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri Mahavir Singh, JM: Both these appeals by assessee are arising out of separate orders of CIT(A)-VI, Kolkata in Appeal Nos. 685 684/CIT(A)-VI/09-10/Cir-6/Kol of even dated 16.02.2010. Assessments were framed by DCIT, Circle-6, Kolkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... back Rs.2,19,68,919/- being the provision for Undentified Motor Third Party Claim." 3. At the outset, Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the Tribunal is taking a consistent view that Rule 8D will not apply prior to AY 2008-09. Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is covered by the decision in ITA Nos. 2270 2271/K/2010, DCIT Vs. The Ashoka Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 dated 23.03.2012, wherein it has been held as under: "We find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) has already held applicability of Rule 8D of the Rules as prospective and not retrospective w.e.f. assessment year 2008-09, wherein Hon'ble High Court has also direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case" We further find that the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on the self same facts in the case of Sagrika Goods Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, I.T.A No. 1278/Kol/2010, Assessment Year 2005-06 dated 24th September, 2010 has held as under: "5. Heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the decisions relied on by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee cited supra. We find that on the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A, this Bench of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that this disallowance should be restricted to 1% of dividend income. Following the same, in this appeal also we hold that the disallowance u/s 14A for earning exempt di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is observed that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of disallowance of Rs.3.17 lakhs while computing the regular taxable income by observing that keeping in mind of the specific provisions contained in the I.T.Act 1961 as regards the procedure for assessment of an assessee carrying on general insurance business and also the above referred two decisions of the Supreme Court, the AO's action in disallowing does not appear to be correct. When once this observation has been made by Ld. CIT(A) it is not fair on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to take a contrary view while computing the MAT u/s. 115JB of the Act by stating that the claim of assessee is in the nature of ad hoc one working out on specific percentage against anticipated/undetermined lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
