TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 2. In the appeal of the Revenue, the following Ground of Appeal has been raised:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A)-3, Mumbai has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 85,37,147/- on account of payment to expartners or spouses of deceased partners without appreciating the fact that the aforesaid payment is nothing but diversion of income by overriding title. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee is a partnership firm of chartered accountants. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee firm has paid an amount of Rs. 85,37,142/- to the ex-partners or spouses of deceased partners in pursuance to clause 22 of the partnership deed. The assessee had claimed ded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. With regard to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court for assessment years 1995-96 to 1997-98, it was noted that the Department had filed a Miscellaneous Application for restoration of appeal for assessment year 1995-96 and as regards assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 the Department did not file SLP to Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of smallness of tax effect. According to the Assessing Officer, the Department had not accepted the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in principle. 6. Before the CIT(A), assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. Apart from that, assessee also pointed out that similar dispute for assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 was decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer in the assessment order for the aforesaid expenses. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow under section 14A, expenses incurred for earning dividend income from the preference shares without providing opportunity to the appellant. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under section 14A for expenses incurred for earning dividend income in accordance with Rule 8D. Interest expenses for earning share of profit 6. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow under section l4A, interest expenditure incurred for earning share of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnership firms would not be in the nature of exempt income, hence profit earned from other partnership firms is not required to be considered while calculating disallowance under section 14A. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowance under section 14A for expenses computed in accordance with Rule 8D. Payment under Clause 22 of the Partnership Deed 14. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not deciding the following grounds in the appeal: "3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Joint Commissioner ought to have allowed deduction for the amount of Rs. 85,3 7,142 under section 3 7( I) of the Act. 4. The learned Joint Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Mfg. Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 . 11. Before us, the Ld. Representative for the assessee submitted that the appellant assessee does not have any substantive grievance inasmuch the matter has been set-aside by the CIT(A) for applying the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. In view of the above, the ultimate conclusion of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra) is hereby affirmed; accordingly, the Ground of appeal nos. 1 to 13 are dismissed. 12. By way of Grounds of appeal nos. 14 to 15, assessee has agitated that the amount of Rs. 85,37,142/- paid to ex-partners and spous....