TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (President) The assessee in this appeal is a private limited company engaged in stock broking, investment banking and trading in securities. The appeal relates to the assessment year 2004-05 and arises out of the assessment order dated 28th December 2006 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The first ground is against the disallowance of the expenses of ₹ 20,22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived under a single dividend warrant and no extra expenditure had to be incurred by the assessee. Reliance was placed on the order of the L Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No: 3684/Mum/2005, dated 29th October 2010, for the assessment year 2001-02. On a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the order cited above, we find force in the same. It is not in dispute that ₹ 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), where it has been held that while invoking section 14A, the income tax authorities have to be reasonable. We are therefore of the view that a disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- would meet the requirements of the case. We accordingly reduce the disallowance from ₹ 20,22,077/- to ₹ 2,00,000/- and allow the ground in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed the same because the conditions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) were not satisfied. On appeal the CIT(A) has allowed the claim as a business loss under section 28 of the Act. The learned representative for the assessee fairly stated that the assessee is not really aggrieved because the claim has been allowed by the CIT(A), though not as bad debt but as business loss. In this vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
