9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue, is directed against the impugned order dated 16th March 2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XXXX, Mumbai, for assessment year 1999-2000. Grounds raided by the Revenue, reads as follows:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that during the year the assessee had sufficient funds for making investments and the disallo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The first appellate authority, at Para-2.3, Page-3 of his order, held as follows:- "2.3 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. As I note, similar issue came up for decision before me in appellant's appeal for the assessment year 2006-07. In my appellate order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, as per the details submitted by the appellant, I find that for the present year under consideration, the appellant had increase of ` 50,91,88,603 in non-interest free funds as against increase of ` 14,44,77,697 in investment in shares. Accordingly, in terms of my discussion in Para-2.3 of my order dated 8.12.2009, for the assessment year 2006-07 and respectfully following the decision dated 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mum.) (SB) 289, is not applicable to the facts of the case. In any event, the said Mumbai Special Bench decision in Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (supra), was reversed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT, (2010), 328 ITR 081 (Bom.). Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v/s Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.), has laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
