TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osing stock. It is not appropriate to include the closing CENVAT in the figure of closing stock without modifying the figures of purchases, sales and opening stock. See CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 182 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT Vs. Mahavir Alluminium [2007 (11) TMI 41 - HIGH COURT, DELHI] - store the matter to the file of A.O. as the authorities have not properly adjusted other figures with the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. - ITA No.3233/Mum/2010, 325/Mum/2009, 3234/Mum/2010, 5915/Mum/2009, 2342/Mum/2011, 3543/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 9-4-2013 - Shri R. S. Syal, AM And Shri Sanjay Garg, JM,JJ. For the petitioner : Shri Dipak Kumar Sinha For the Respondent : Shri K. Gopal and Sh. Jitendra Singh ORDER Per Bench : These seven appeals by two different but connected assessee, some of which are cross appeals, relate to assessment years 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. Since some common issues are involved in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. ITA No.3233/Mum/2010 : M/s.Bhilad Textile Industries Pvt.Ltd. Assessment Year 2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9,159 made u/s 14A of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of this ground are that the assessee earned exempt dividend income of Rs.83,81,265 on investment of Rs.1.42 crore. No expenditure was disallowed by the assessee voluntarily u/s 14A of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance u/s 14A as per Rule 8D amounting to Rs.6,49,159. The learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the assessment year involved before us is 2004-2005. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. v. DCIT [(2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom)] has held that the provisions of Rule 8D cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to 2008-2009. Since the assessment year under consideration is prior to assessment year 2008-2009, as such Rule 8D cannot be invoked for the purposes of computing disallowance u/s 14A. We, therefore, vacate the finding given by the learned CIT(A) in this regard. The matter is accordingly sent back to the AO for working out the disallowance under this provision on some Rs.reasonable basis' as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant ground are mutatis mutandis similar to those of the similar issue considered and decided by us above for the assessment year 2004-2005. Following the view taken hereinabove, we direct that the goodwill be considered as eligible for depreciation. This ground is allowed. 13. Two additional grounds involving single issue of disallowance u/s 14A have been raised in this appeal. Since these grounds are legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be examined, we admit the same. In fact, no serious objection was taken by the ld. DR to the admission of such grounds. 14. By way of these additional grounds, the assessee has assailed the sustenance of disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs.4,95,000. Similar issue has been considered and decided by us above. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant grounds are mutatis mutandis similar to those of assessment year 2004-2005. Following the view taken hereinabove, we remit the mater to the file of the AO for working out the disallowance under this provision on some Rs.reasonable basis' as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extile Industries Pvt.Ltd. As the facts and circumstances of the this ground are similar to those of assessment year 2004-2005 in the case of M/s.Bhilad Textile Industries Pvt.Ltd., following the view taken hereinabove, we remit the mater to the file of the AO for working out the disallowance under this provision on some reasonable basis' as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in Godrej Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. (supra). 23. Third ground raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.9,28,576 u/s 145A. Here again, both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the ground are similar to those of assessment year 2004-2005 in the case of M/s.Bhilad Textile Industries Pvt.Ltd. Following the view taken hereinabove, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of A.O. for deciding it afresh in accordance with the judgements in the case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) and Mahavir Alluminium (Del.) and the provisions of section 145A. 24. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. M/s.Supreme Nonwoven Industries Pvt.Ltd. Asst.Year 2007-2008 ITA No.2342/Mum/2011 ITA No.3574/Mum/2011 25. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
