9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LLAIYA, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are preferred by the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-12, Mumbai dt.25.11.2011 pertaining to A.Y. 2007-08. As both these appeals were heard together, they are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 389/Mum/2012 -2007-08 2. The assessee has raised two substantive grounds o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act. Thereafter, the AO went on to compute the disallowance at ₹ 50,92,351/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the firm belief that no deduction in respect of any expense that can be attributable to earning exempt income is allowable. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further took us to page-42 of the Paper Book and pointed out that for A.Y. 2005-06, once again the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s. 14A to 2% of the exempt income which decision has also been accepted by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel concluded that on the same set of facts, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in making the disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Ground No. 1 2 are partly allowed. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not press additional ground of appeal, therefore it is dismissed as not pressed. ITA No. 946/Mum/2012 Revenue s appeal 10. The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be computed by applying Rule 8D. 11. We find that during th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
