9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J.M. The present appeal preferred by the Revenue, is directed against the impugned order dated 9th December 2010, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-X, Mumbai, for assessment year 2007-08. The sole ground raised by the Revenue is whether or not the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the rebate under section 88E of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diture between share trading and other income for the purpose of calculating rebate under section 88E, and also did not take into account the impact of additions made in the assessment year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has wrongly restricted the rebate under section 88E, to an amount of Rs. 3,63,27,228, which was allowable at Rs. 3,73,10,662. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), after verifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he difference, if any, is mainly on account of allocation of expenditure. The assessee has adopted a scientific method for allocation of expenditure which has been consistently accepted by the Revenue. He submitted that due to that allocation of expenditure and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 94(7) of the Act, the claim allowable was to the extent of Rs. 3,73,10,662. He su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng income 12,10,90,745 12,36,60,316 12,43,68,874 Tax @ 30% (88E claim) 3,63,27,223 3,70,98,095 3,73,10,662 6. We have heard the rival contentions, careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and perused papers on record. No defects have been pointed out in the aforesaid chart submitted by the assessee. The difference is only due to allocation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
