2015 (11) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A No. 7483/M/2010 - Revenue's appeal 2. The first grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,58,760/- made u/s. 14A of the Act. 2.1. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has earned tax free dividend income of Rs. 20,10,116/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 3,50,01,481/- which were claimed as exempt. However, the AO found that the assessee has not allocated any expense incurred for earning of such tax free income. Invoking the provisions of Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D, the AO computed the disallowance at Rs. 9,58,760/-. 3. The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) and it was explained that Rule 8D is not applicab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....charges and Leaseline charges paid to stock exchange. 9. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Angel Capital and Debit Market Ltd. in IT Appeal No. 475 of 2007 which has been followed by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2005-06 in ITA No. 1497/M/09 and ITA No. 6444/M/09 for A.Y. 2006-07. 10. The Ld. DR could not bring any distinguish decision in favour of the Revenue. 11. We find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. The issues raised vide ground No. 2 have been considered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 ....