9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. It is prayed that delay of three days in filing the appeal may be condoned. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 22,10,554/- being loss on account of damaged paper stock. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 80,34,343/- on account of diminution in value of shares held as stock in trade. 4. Appellant craves leave to amend or alter the existing grounds or add further grounds at the time of hearing." 3. Vide first ground, the assessee has prayed for the condonation of delay of three days in filing the present appeal. However, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e become scrap. The AO therefore disallowed the said claim for want of evidence. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A) also, the assessee failed to prove his claim with any cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition. 6. Even before us, the ld. A.R. could not bring any evidence in justification of the above claim. The explanation given by the A.R. is general in nature and is not supported with any convincing evidence. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authorities while making the above disallowance. This ground is accordingly decided against the assessee. 7. Vide ground No.3, the assessee has agitated the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 80,34,343/- on account of diminution in value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against the assessee. 9. Ground No.4 is general in nature. 10. Now we take up the Revenue's appeal. ITA No.358/M/2011: 11. The Revenue vide its grounds of appeal has agitated the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to make reasonable disallowance of expenditure under section 14A in respect of investments made for earning tax free income. It may be observed that the assessment year in question is 2006-07. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of "Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom)", the rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules is applicable for assessment year 2008-09 onwards. In the case in hand, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had earned certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
