TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the succeeding paragraphs. 2. At the outset, referring to the grounds raised in both the appeals under consideration, Shri P.P. Jayaraman, Ld Counsel for the assessee mentioned that the issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is common in both the appeals. The other issue raised by the Revenue at Ground no.1 relates to the deletion of addition of ₹ 30,00,000/- made on account of compensation from customers needs to be remanded to the files of the AO as an identical issue was accordingly remanded for the subsequent assessment year 2008-2009 vide ITA No.6832/M/2011 (AY 2008-2009) dated 27.2.2013. In this regard, Ld Counsel brought our attention to para 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical disallowance should meet both the ends of justice. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT (A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited judgments of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra) on the issue under consideration. On perusal of the said judgments of the Bombay High Court, we find that the provisions of Rule-8D should not be applied indirectly as well and the disallowance, if any, should be made only after having regard to the books of accounts of the assessee and after considering the issues relating to the reasonableness of the disallowance. What cannot be done directly, should not be done indirectly also, therefore, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while applying the decision of this court in the matter of Godrej (supra) has disallowed the expenditure only to the extent of 2% of the total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee on the basis its order dated 27.2.2009 for the assessment year 2002-2003 and order dated 10.9.2009 for the Assessment Years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 wherein disallowance was restricted to 2% of the exempt income. Further; the Tribunal has remanded the matter to the AO to verify the disallowance claimed and restrict the disallowance only to the extent to 2% of the total exempt income. We find no fault with the order of the Tribunal. Considering the binding nature of the judgment, we direct the AO to quantify the disallowance in the light of the afor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
