9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2016 - M. S. Sanklecha And S. C. Gupte, JJ. For the Appellant : Ashok Kotangle, Padma Divakar, Vipul Bajpayee For the Respondent : Nishant Thakkar, Jasmin Amalsadvala, i/b. PDS Legal ORDER This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), challenges the order dated 22nd May, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The Revenue urges only the following questions of law for our consideration: (a) Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in restricting the disallowance of expenses incurred in relation to earning of exempt income at 1% of the administrative expenses, by relying on the decision of this Court in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a): (i) The impugned order of the Tribunal was passed in an appeal filed by the Revenue from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] holding that no amount is disallowable under Section 14A of the Act in respect of exempt dividend income under Section 10 (33) of the Act. The impugned order of the Tribunal in accordance with the directions of this Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd., v/s. DCIT 328 ITR 81 partly allowed Revenue's appeal. This by holding that expenditure has to be disallowed under Section 14A of the Act on the reasonable basis as the Assessment Year involved was prior to Assessment Year 2008-09. (ii) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that an ident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... May, 2013 being Income Tax Appeal No. 498 of 2014 for the Assessment Year 1997-98. This Court by an order dated 8th August, 2016 found that they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Therefore, not entertained. (ii) In view of the above submission made on behalf of the Revenue, questions (b) and (c) do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Re Question (d): (i) Mr. Kotangle, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that issue raised herein stands concluded against Appellant-Revenue and in favour of the Respondent-Assessee by the decision of this Court in CIT v/s. Ogilvy and Mather Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 4260 of 2009 dated 26th September, 2011) wherein the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
