TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 [2013 (3) TMI 654 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], which is not disputed by the Revenue, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) allowing the carry forward of deficit on account of excess expenditure - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 6129/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 5-3-2015 - Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President and S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) or as corpus donation u/s 11(1)(d) in earlier year/current year and then as application of income u/s. 11(1)(a) in the subsequent year which was legally not permissible? 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of the assessee for carry forward of the said deficit, ignoring the fact th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the disallowance made by the AO. 4. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of A.Y. 2005-06 on identical issue the order passed by the ITAT was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court (I.T. Appeal No. 2652 of 2011 dated 20th March, 2013). Since the view taken by the learned CIT(A) is in conformity with the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
