TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r: "The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance to the extent of Rs.51,96,795/- out of loss on foreign exchange fluctuation debited to the profit and loss account of the year on the contention that the same is part of the costs of the material and should have been included in the value of the closing stock." 3.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had debited an amount of Rs.1,73,87,882/- as foreign exchange fluctuation loss in respect of raw materials and finished goods. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to file the details of foreign exchange fluctuation loss. After considering various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.51,96....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall pass appropriate order on this issue in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. This ground of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 7. Grounds of appeal no.3 by the assessee reads as under: "The ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in attributing expenses of Rs.4,82,284/- as being incurred by the appellant in relation to the dividend income exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act and disallowing the same u/s 14A of the Act." 7.1 Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee company has claimed dividend income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsp; 9. The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has mentioned that for claiming proportionate disallowance only the total administrative and other expenditure other than manufacturing expenses incurred during the year has to be considered as attributable to the dividend income claimed exempt u/s 10(33) of the Act. However, while calculating the disallowance, he did not exclude the manufacturing expenses; therefore, the calculation determined by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. He further submitted that in the earlier year, the CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A for which the revenue has not preferred any appeal on this issue. Further, any expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nses for calculating proportionate disallowance u/s 14A although in the assessment order, he has mentioned that proportionate disallowance has to be claimed on the basis of administrative and other expenses other than manufacturing expenses incurred during the year. In our opinion, the matter needs fresh adjudication at the lavel of the Assessing Officer in the light of the latest decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Mfg P ltd (supra) wherein it has been held that Rule 8D is not retrospective and is applicable from Assessment Year 2008-09 and the disallowance for earlier period has to be determined on reasonable basis. The Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13. After hearing both the sides, we find similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02. We find, the Tribunal in the consolidated order dated 31.5.2010 at para 49 of the order had discussed the issue and had held as under: "Both the representatives agree before us that the issue arising out of the aforesaid ground is mutatis mutadis identical to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Harjivandas Juthabhai Zaveri, 258 ITR 785 (Guj) and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Fenner (India) Ltd vs CIT 241 ITR 803 (Mad), wherein their Lordships have granted relief to the assessee for the reasons stated therein. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we set aside the order....