TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08 respectively, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Mumbai. 2. The sole common ground raised by the assessee in all the years under appeal is, whether or not the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in confirming the disallowance under section 14A of Rs. 95,609 for the assessment year 2002-03, Rs. 7,66,639 for the assessment year 2004-05, Rs. 8,57,174 for the assessment year 2005-06 and Rs. 10,09,769 for the assessment year 2007-08 made by the Assessing Officer after invoking the provisions of rule 8D. 3. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard togethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies only and from assessment year 2001-02 from 14 parties only. Having regard to these particulars facts we are satisfied that the facts of the case of the assessee are distinguishable from those in various judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee. However, we are not satisfied that for these reasons alone the expenditure was required to be arithmetically allocated on proportionate basis. It is true that the expenditure claimed by the assessee is required to be allocated between these two sources of income and other minor receipts but th eao is required to analyse the facts so as to arrive at the quantum of expenditure that can be apportioned amongst various receipts. Expenditure incurred by the assessee may or may not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a reasonable method for computation of disallowance even though it has been made under the formula of rule 8D. Accordingly, he confirmed the said disallowance. 6. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, first of all, the provisions of rule 8D has been applied which cannot be held to be applicable because the assessment years involved is prior to the assessment year 2008-09. He also submitted before us, analysis of the administrative expenditure to show, that what could be the expenditure which can be said to be attributable for the earning of exempt income and also the expenditures which are solely and exclusively incurred for the purpose of the assessee's other business. His other main limb of the argument is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of rule 8D, which has also been confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Such a working of the disallowance cannot be sustained for the reason that, firstly, it is beyond the mandate of the directions given by the Tribunal; and secondly, the provisions of rule 8D are not applicable, in the assessment years prior to the assessment year 2008-09, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). The learned Counsel for the assessee, before us, had submitted that even if 0.5% of the average investment is taken into consideration for making proportionate disallowance, then also the working of the Assessing Officer is faulty, because there are huge investments which are not ca....