9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income tax act. 2. The brief facts are that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee had earned certain dividend income and long term capital gain, which was claimed exempt from income tax. The assessee had not allocated any expenditure for earning of above said tax free income. The AO determined the amount of expenditure as per the provisions of Rule 8D at Rs.1065080/- and added back the same into the income of the appellant. 3. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) relying upon judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. Vs. DCIT [(2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom)] observed that Rule 8 D was not applicable for A.Y. under consideration i.e. 2007-08 and that the disallowance was to be worked out by the AO on so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal to the sale of shares which remained unsold by the assessee. His further contention has been that it cannot be said that the expenditure incurred in acquiring the shares has to be apportioned to the extent of dividend income and that should be disallowed from deduction. He further contended that the disallowance of expenditure in relation to dividend received from trading of shares cannot be made. His further contention has been that the provisions of section 14A read with Rule 8D were not applicable in the case of the appellant as no expenditure had been incurred to earn tax free dividend income. On the other hand the ld. DR has relied upon the authorities below. 6. We have considered the submissions of the ld. Representatives of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made above, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2579/Mum/12 for A.Y. 2008-09 The only distinguishable fact in this appeal is that the same pertains to A.Y. 2008-09 and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. VS. DCIT(Supra) Rule 8D is applicable for this year. 10. The CIT(A) in this case confirmed the disallowance made by the A.O. under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. 11. The contention of the ld. AR has been that the AO without recording any dissatisfaction with regard to the computation made by the assessee, straightway applied Rule 8D. His second contention has been the same for this year also i.e. authorities below failed to consider the fact tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, we restore the issue for this year also to the file of the AO for making assessment afresh, with a direction that the AO will examine the computation/calculation made in this regard by the assessee. The A.O. will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present its case and produce documents, if any. The AO will be at liberty to call for any record/evidences or statement etc. from the assessee as may be required by him for deciding the issue under consideration. After going through the details provided by the assessee, if the AO will be satisfied with the computation/calculations made by the assessee, then he will assess the income accordingly. However, if the AO does not agree with the computation made by the assessee, in that even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
