9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion as a substantial question of law for adjudication : "(A) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not remitting the matter back to the AO for re-computation of the disallowance under section 14A of the Act since the AO had applied Rule 8D and there arose no occasion for him to examine whether the disallowance made by the assessee in respect of expenses pertaining to exempt income was appropriate or not?" 3. In our opinion no substantial question of law arises for our decision. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of giving loans and earning interest income. It also earned commission income on trading of goods and freight investment made in mutual funds. In the return filed for the assessment year 2007-08, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA 626/2010 where it was held that Rule 8D took effect only from the assessment year 2008-09, the CIT(Appeals) held that the disallowance worked out by the Assessing Officer was not justified. He accordingly, deleted the further disallowance made by Assessing Officer and allowed the assesses‟s appeal on this point. 5. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed the method adopted by the assessee in making a disallowance of Rs.36,64f,485/- out of the total expense of Rs.47,73,534/-. It found no discrepancy or error in the disallowance made by the assessee. The basis adopted by the assessee has been set out in para 4.2 of the order of the Tribunal in a tabular form. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer to take out a plea before the CIT(Appeals) that the disallowance offered by the assessee was not sufficient, even if Rule 8D was not applicable but this was not done. When the matter reached the Tribunal, the Tribunal specifically called upon the departmental representative to point out any error in the computation of the disallowance made by the assessee, but he was not able to point out any error in the same. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no strong grounds have been made out for disturbing the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in our view was not in error in not remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 7. The ld. standing counsel referred to the judgment dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
