9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department : Shri D.R. Sindhal, CIT-D.R. ORDER Per Shri B. R. Mittal, Judicial Member Since there was a difference of opinion between the ld. Members constituting the Division Bench of ITAT, Kolkata with regard to the following question, the matter was referred to Third Member under section. 255(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for his opinion :- "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 8D of the Rules directed the A.O. to disallow Rs.10,28,900/-, thereby enhanced the total income by Rs.9,86,770/-. In the grounds of cross objection the assessee objected to the order of the Id. C.I.T.(A) only on the issue of application of Rule 8D for the purposes of making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Perusal of the grounds of cross objection showed that the assessee did not challenge the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd (supra). Therefore, once both the Ld. Members agreed with the submissions of the learned for the assessee that Rule 8D of the Rules was not applicable and disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act could not be made with reference to said Rule 8D in assessment year 2005-06, then the question remains whether it was open for the Tribunal to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f amount disallowable, because neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the estimation of amount disallowable, as made by the A.O. in the assessment order. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot go into the question of reasonableness of the estimate of the amount disallowable made by the A.O. because neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings of the A.O. makin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
