9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.1799/MUM/2013 - - - Dated:- 8-6-2015 - SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee by Shri Chetan A. Karia Revenue by Shri Jeevanlal Lavidiya O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: These are cross appeals and are directed against order passed by Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 18/12/2012 for assessment year 2005-06. Grounds of appeal read as under: Grounds of Assessee s Appeal: 1) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of ₹ 16,23,432/- u/s.14A of the Act as against ₹ 4,85,000/- disallowance by the assessee. 2) The appellant prays that: i) Disallowance u/s.14A may be restricted to the amount of ₹ 4,85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the parties is common i.e. regarding disallowance made under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act). Earlier the matter was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of AO for readjudication of disallowance under section 14A in the light of decision of Hon ble Bombay High court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). The AO calculated the disallowance by applying 0.5% of average investment i.e. regarding the expenditure and computed the disallowance at ₹ 29,82,705/-. The disallowance was agitated in the appeal filed before Ld. CIT(A)and assessee submitted a calculation before Ld. CIT(A) for making the disallowance u/s.14A. The said calculation is reproduced by Ld. CIT(A) in para-4.1 of his order, which for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Add: Expenses spent for investment 9,04,906 Total Disallowance 14,25,020 5. Ld. CIT(A) after going through the details of expenses and above calculation of the assessee has come to a conclusion that in place of ₹ 14,25,020/- calculated in the aforementioned table, the disallowance was required to be made at a sum of ₹ 16,23,432/- and, therefore, he reduced the disallowance to a sum of ₹ 16,23,432/-. The Relevant observations of Ld. CIT(A), for the sake of convenience, are reproduced below: 5. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision in Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 328 ITR 81, of ₹ 16,23,432/- is confirmed. This is a reasonable disallowance by respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Gillette Group India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also. In result, the ground of appeal is treated as partly allowed. The Department is aggrieved with the part disallowance, which has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and assessee in its appeal is aggrieved with the disallowance sustained to the extent of ₹ 16,23,432/- in place of disallowance of ₹ 14,25,020/- calculated in the above table. 6. On the these facts, it was submitted by Ld. AR that assessee has rightly allocated 84% expenses which was calculated to ₹ 5, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me is dismissed. 9. Now coming to the appeal filed by the assessee, we have gone through the aforementioned calculation submitted by the assessee and also the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), we found that the calculation submitted by the assessee is reasonable and was required to be accepted by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, considering the details of expenditure and calculation submitted by the assessee, we uphold the disallowance only to the extent of ₹ 14,25,020/- and rest of the disallowance upheld by Ld. CIT(A) is deleted and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
