TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... : 2000-01 : 2. The first ground of the Revenue's appeal is against the interest income arising from securities held by the ld. CIT(A) to be taxable on due basis and not on day to day basis on accrual. 2.1 At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that a Special Bench was constituted in assessee's own case for asst. years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 which has disposed of the appeals vide its order dated 13-02-2010. Placing on record a copy of the order, the ld. AR submitted that the Special Bench has decided this issue in assessee's favour. The ld. D.R. fairly accepted the position stated on behalf of the assessee. Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground is not allowed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the file of AO in the terms submitted by the ld. A.R. He, however, did not raise any objection to the prayer made by the ld. A.R. for not doubly taxing the same income, firstly in the year in which the guarantee was given and secondly when the amount was voluntarily offered by the assessee over the period of guarantee. 4.1 Having heard both the sides on the issue and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the Special Bench of the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of AO with the directions contained in para-25 of its order. Respectfully following the same, we remit the matter to the file of AO in the year under consideration also for taking a final decision as per the direction given by the Special Bench in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) in which it has been held that disallowance is called for u/s.14A in such circumstances. However, the manner of computation of such disallowance has been restored to the file of AO for making on some reasonable basis. It has further been held in this case the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable as these are prospective. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to compute disallowance u/s.14A in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). 7. The last ground is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) for allowing expenditure incurre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estricting it u/s. 44C of the Act. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It has not been controverted by the ld. DR that the said sum of Rs. 1.72 crores was incurred by the head office specifically for soliciting deposits from NRIs for its Indian Branch. Section 44C deals with deduction of head office expenses in the case of non-residents. This section has been enshrined to get rid of the difficulty in scrutinizing the deductibility of common expenses incurred by the head office. So it serves the dual purpose, viz., obviating the hardship in allocating the correct proportion to the Indian branch as well as restricting the amount of expenditure allowable on account of head office expenses. However this....