New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1288 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 1288 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- It is agreed between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the case "Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. VS. DCIT, (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) - Decided against revenue

Claim of rebate under Section 88E - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Revenue does not dispute the fact that for the Assessment year 2006-07 the claim under S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od of allocation of expenses made by the respondent-assessee is incorrect and/or bad.- Decided against revenue - Income Tax Appeal No. 2074 of 2013 - Dated:- 23-11-2015 - M. S. Sanklecha And G. S. Kulkarni, JJ. For the Appellants : Mr Suresh Kumar i/b Ms Padma Divakar For the Respondent : Ms Asifa Khan ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 (the Act) filed by the Revenue, challenges the order 31 January 2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amp; Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom.), when the Revenue has not accepted the principles laid down by the said decision as evidenced by the SLP filed ? (3) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the claim of rebate under Section 88E of the Income Tax Act,1961 ?" 3. Regarding Question Nos.1 & 2: (a) It is agreed between the parties that the issue raised herein stand concluded against the Revenue by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

this Court in "Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd." (supra). (c) Thus, question Nos.1 and 2 as proposed do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, not entertained. 4. Regarding Question 3: (a) The respondent-assessee had in its return of income claimed rebate under Section 88E of the Act of ₹ 3.33 crores. Section 88E of the Act provides for rebate in respect of income earned on transactions on which securities transaction tax had been paid. The Assessing Officer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Assessing Officer to recompute the rebate allowable to respondent under Section 88E of the Act by allocating the expenditure as done by respondent-assessee. (c) Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order recorded the fact that the claim of the respondent-assessee for rebate under Section 88E of the Act for the earlier Assessment Year i.e. 200607 where allocation of expenditure was identical to that adopted in the subject Assessment Yea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version