9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ORDER PER: SHAILNDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM Both these appeals raise common issue. Therefore, they were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Both these appeals by different assesses arise out of separate orders of the CIT(A) both dated 24-7-2009 for A.Y. 2003-04 on the point of deduction claimed u/s 80-M of the Income-ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the dividend income received to the extent of dividend paid before the due ate of filing of return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of assessee in the light of provisions of section 115-0(5) of the Act holding that the deduction u/s 80-M of the Act was not allowable since the same was in respect of such dividends declared by the assessee which were taxed u/s 115-0(1) of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r was not justified in applying the provisions of section 115-O of the Act for the year under consideration. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we find that similar issue came up for consideration before co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Castle Investment & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward 8(1)(2) Mumbai in ITA No. 1713/MUM/2006 for A.Y. 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge. In this view of the matter, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment & Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra), we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-M of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 6. Similar issue has been raised by the assessee in ITA No.1223/PN/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
