9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in assessee s own case for A.Y.2006-07[ 2012 (11) TMI 1245 - ITAT MUMBAI] we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for confirming the disallowance, in both the years under consideration. - ITA No.3492, 3472, 3473/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2019 - SHRI R.C.SHARMA AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra Respondent by: Shri Y.P. Trivedi / Shri Satish Modi ORDER SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, J. These cross appeals filed by assessee and revenue are against the order of CIT(A)-54, Mumbai dated 06/03/2016 for the A.Yrs. 2013-14 2014-15 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been taken both by the assessee and revenue in both the years under co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 25% of such expenditure under the provisions of 37(1) of the Act. However, AO disallowed the balance 75%. From the record, we found that the issue under consideration have been consistently decided by the Tribunal in assessee s favour. ITAT in assessee s own case for the A.Y. 1998-99 and from A.Y.2002-03 to 2007- 08 and in the case of N. Jamanadas Co., which is a group concern have passed a consolidated order for A.Y.1997-98, 1998-99 dated 11/02/2011 wherein disallowance to the extent of 25% was upheld and balance was deleted. In this year also we find that CIT(A) by following the order of the Tribunal for the A.Y.2012-13 deleted the addition after observing as under:- 6.3 Following this order my predecessor CIT(A) has decided the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the result, grounds taken by the revenue in both the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 are dismissed. 4. The revenue has also taken ground for deleting disallowance of expenditure u/s.14A r.w.r.8D. From the record, we find that disallowance made u/s.14A amounting to ₹ 2,34,440/- was made by AO applying rule 8D. By the impugned order, CIT(A) deleted the same by observing as under:- The third ground of appeal is against the disallowance of an amount of ₹ 2,34,440/- on account of section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D. The AO observed in the Assessment Order that the assessee has investments of 'Rs.-1,80,85,935/- as closing balance at the end of the year. The assessee has not earned any exempt income from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of 41.50% by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case. The precise observation of CIT(A) was as under:- 8.3 The submissions of the Learned Counsel have been carefully considered. This is also a recurring issue. The issue has been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai for AY 2007-08. While deciding the issue the Hon'ble ITAT relied upon its own decision in the assessee's own case for the AY 2006-07 and held as under: We have heard the Id AR of the assessee as well as the Id DR and considered the relevant material. It was pointed out by the Id AR of the assessee that a similar issue has been considered and decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA no. 263/Mum/08 vide or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
