9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n support of this appeal. He challenges the order of the tribunal dated 21st March, 2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.2588/Mum/2011 and 3440/Mum/2011. 2. Mr.Tejveer Singh submits that there are five substantial questions of law and which emerge from this order. 3. In relation to question (d) and which is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The argument of assessee was that there was no expenditure in earning this exempted income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed this addition. The tribunal has found that there was interest applicable on the dividend earned and only administrative expenditure was incurred and that was estimated at 5% of the dividend earned. It was found to be reasonabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing officer cannot be faulted for recording that he is not satisfied about correctness or completeness of account of the assessee. Such finding should not have been reversed by the tribunal. More so, when it was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In relation to these questions what we find is that the assessing officer has been faulted for not following section 145(3) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e comparison by the assessing officer and by looking at the very document, namely, the profit and loss account was improper. The merits of addition have been gone into in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order. The tribunal has termed the approach of assessing officer as unfortunate. It is termed as arbitrary, high handed and cannot be sustained. Without examining the basic parameters for reject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
