2012 (2) TMI 570

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg Co 328 ITR 81 (Bom), both the parties agree that this issue is to be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and decide the disallowance under section 14A afresh. Since the Assessing Officer invoked rule 8D which is not applicable in the impugned AY, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine whether there is any exempt income and if so reasonable amount for disallowance under section 14A.The issue in this ground is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication according to the facts and law. Ground is considered as allowed. 3. Ground No.2 is an alternate ground with reference to computation of disallowance under rule 8D which was raised a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unt of `13,72,623/-forfeited by the AEPC during the financial year 200405 i.e. AY 2005-06 pertaining to non utilization of export quota guaranteed in earlier years. It was the assessee's submission that the year of allotment of quota pertain to years 1994 and 1998,99, the amounts were demanded by the show cause notice issued in September, 1994, August 1995 and September, 2000. There was adjudication before the first appellate authority in the years 200102 and the matter was pending in higher forum. However, during the year the said Council has forfeited the amount to an extent of `.13,72,623/-. Therefore, the assessee claimed the expenditure but have classified as prior period expenses under the Company Law. The Assessing Officer however, w....