2014 (6) TMI 733

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y High Court in the case of My s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT wherein it has held that provision of Rule 8D does not have retrospective effect when this finding of Bombay High Court has not be accepted and department is in appeal before the Supreme Court on this issue. 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that provisions of section 41(1) of the I.T.Act are not applicable to unproved liabilities shown in the balance sheet on the ground that the assessee has offered these liabilities to tax in the A.Y.2010-11. 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding that unproved liabilities cannot be brou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his Income. The appeal on this ground is partly allowed." 4. The grievance of the revenue in this appeal is that the revenue has not accepted the decision of Jurisdictional High Court. Since the decision has not been reversed or stayed, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue. 5. Ground no. 2 and 3 is regarding addition u/s 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR as well as Ld. Authorized Representative and considered the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer has noted from the details filed by the assessee that the assessee has made the provisions for liability of Transshipment charges for the A.Y. under consideration amounting to Rs. 21,88,827/-. On query ....