9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Praveen Aggarwal, Advocates. ORDER MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 28.10.2011 in ITA No.822/Del/2010 and 3747/Del/2010. The question of law urged on its behalf in this appeal is the correctness of the Tribunal's order, rejecting its contention that a remand to work out a disallowance under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Bombay High Court in Godrej & Boyce v. DCIT, 328 ITR 81. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's contentions on the premise that the assessee had adequate resources to invest its amounts and that the investments which had yielded the dividend were made in earlier years. The ITAT, therefore, felt that there was no need to remit the matter on account of the Bombay High Court's decision. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bonds which yielded the tax exempt interest income did not involve any expenditure; the material on record also showed that the assessee had sufficient funds to deploy for the purpose of such investment. It was also argued that this Court should be alive to the rule of consistency because in the previous years, the claim for disallowance had been rejected and the matters had achieved finality. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
