9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee had sold the entire shares ie original shares as well as bonus shares during the year and acquisition cost of bonus shares were nil and therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly adjusted the cost proportionate to investment and also without appreciating the fact that the invoking of section 94(8) by the Assessing Officer was a typographical error and the correct section is section 48. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the disallowance u/s 14A on a reasonable basis relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the judgment of Bombay High Court has not been acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The term units as defined in Clause (b) of Explanation to section 115AB are as under. "Units means unit of a mutual fund specified under cause (23D) of section 10 of Unit Trust of India." The appellant further argued that the STCL arisen on sale of L & T shares and Satyam Computers was computed on the basis of FIFO method, as laid down by the CBDT in its circular No. 768 dated 26.4.1999 wherein the CBDT has stated that while determining the security that is transferred, the items that first entered in the demat account shall deemed to the item which is first transferred. In this regard the appellant submitted that the copy of demat statement enclosed reveal that the assessee has sold from the demat account the original holding, not the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the Act w.e.f 1.4.1995, is proper and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Regarding ground no.2, both the parties agreed to the proposition that the said issue being applicability of section 14A, the AO erroneously applied the Rule-8D for the assessment year in question which actually applicable from the assessment year 2008-2009 as held by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 (Bom). In this regard Ld Counsel mentioned that the issue may have to be sent back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication and deciding the issue afresh on the 'reasonable basis' after rejecting the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
