9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, no addition is call for – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No.1561/M/2011 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2014 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Amit Shukla,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Bhadresh Doshi For the Respondent : Shri Sumit Kumar, DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee on 23.2.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Mumbai dated 16.11.2010 for the assessment year 2006-2007. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of ₹ 5,36,442/- as against ₹ 2,11,842/- calculated by the Tax Auditor in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Rule 8D read with section 14A and quantified the disallowable expenditure at ₹ 5,36,442/-. After reducing the expenditure offered by the assessee, AO made addition of ₹ 3,24,600/-. Matter travelled to the first appellate proceedings. 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, after considering the submissions of the assessee, CIT (A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and the same is discussed in para 5 of the impugned order without much discussion. Aggrieved with the decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the above mentioned grounds. 5. At the outset, Shri Bhadresh Doshi, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the only issue emanating from the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (b) is concerned, the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 17.9.2010 while applying the decision of this court in the matter of Godrej (supra) has disallowed the expenditure only to the extent of 2% of the total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee on the basis its order dated 27.2.2009 for the assessment year 2002-2003 and order dated 10.9.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 wherein disallowance was restricted to 2% of the exempt income. Further; the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the AO to verify the disallowance claimed and restrict the disallowance only to the extent to 2% of the total exempt income. We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal. 8. Considering the binding nature of the judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
