2013 (4) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting the AO to decide the same in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, even though the Assessing Officer had disallowed only 10% of the exempt dividend income under Section 14A of the Act and had not applied Rule 8D and therefore the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was not at all applicable to the assessee's case?    b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2.15,764/under Section 14A even though the disallowance was reasonable?    c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Tribunal was justivied in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,06,75,058/on account of long term capital loss claimed by the assessee, even though the assessee had failed to substantiate the sale price of the shares of the group concern Samsonite India Private Limited at Rs.5.57 per share without taking into account the fair market value of the land, building, plant and machinery and loans/advances/debts?    h) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justivied in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,06,75,058/on account of long term capital loss claimed by the assessee, even though the assessee admitted that the value land and building at market price ought to have been calculated by the Revenue? &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the file of the assessing officer to decide afresh in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. DCIT reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). In view of the above, we find no reason to entertain questions (a) and (b) as framed by the Revenue. 3. In so far as question (c) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order has followed the decision of the Apex court in the matter of Vijaya Bank V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 322 ITR 166, wherein it has been held that once the provision of doubtful debt has been debited to the profit and loss account and corresponding provision has been credited or reduced ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rtain the identity of the debtor. 6. In so far as question (f) is concerned, it is the case of the Revenue that the shares were sold due to family arrangement at very low prices and, hence, the loss is alleged to have been contrived. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of K.P. Varghese V/s. I.T.O. reported in 131 ITR 597, wherein it is held that it is not sufficient for the Revenue to merely allege that the assessee has received more consideration than what is declared, but the Revenue must prove that the assessee had in fact received more consideration. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the Revenue has not discharged the burden which is casts upon it in terms of the decision o....