9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Bombay in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and HDFC Bank (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) squarely apply. To this extent, no disallowance can be made. In A.Y. 2008-09, the Tribunal has accepted the suo moto disallowance @ 5% of dividend income. We find that in this year, the assessee has given a complete break-up of proportionate expenses allocated by it which is exhibited at page-71 of the Paper book. Except for this, all other facts are identical to the facts of assessment year 2008- 09. Since assessee has given a detailed break-up as mentioned hereinabove, we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to ₹ 9,49,475/- as made by the assessee. - I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2013 And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for A.Y. 2004-05) had allowed the provisions for loss on mark to market as deductible expenditure. The appellant s submission has been considered. The appellant has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of M/s. Edelweiss Capital Ltd (supra) for A.Y. 2004-05, enclosing a copy of the order. From this decision, I find that the Hon ble ITAT had been pleased to allow the appeal against disallowance of provisions for loss on mark to market basis in respect of trading in derivatives which included equity index and stock futures observing that the provisions reflected in substance is the loss arising on account of valuation of closing stock. Even in appeal of assessment year 2008-09, my predecessor vide appellate order No. CIT(A)-8/C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... towards expenses incurred to earn exempt income. The AO observed that the allocation is mainly an adhoc measures rather than through maintaining separate heads of income for this purpose. The AO did not accept the allocation of the assessee and proceeded to compute the disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D and the total disallowance was computed at ₹ 3,87,51,542/-. 4. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 7235/M/2011 by its order dt. 13.8.2014. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that in that year, the assessee has disallowed 5% of divid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
