2014 (5) TMI 697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 20.07.2012, dismissing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 21.12.2011. 2. Opening the arguments for and on behalf of the assessee, it was s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ank FDRs and a partnership firm, i.e., to the tune of Rs.150 lacs and Rs.50 lacs respectively. Excluding the same would leave a marginal investment in the range of Rs.1.50 lacs, only qua which r. 8D could apply. The assessee has, in fact, earned a nominal dividend at Rs. 14,896/- for the current year. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, would rely on the orders of the aut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng interest in the sum of Rs.199.15 lacs (refer, inter alia, Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and Cheminvest Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (Del-SB)). Further, it is not only the investment in shares, yielding dividend, but also that in the partnership firm that would stand to be reckoned for the purpose of the relevant investment in computing the disallowance under ....