TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (3) TMI 585
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. 2. The first issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) in not deleting the disallowance being the provision made for leave encashment. For this, assessee raised following ground no.1: "1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not deleting the disallowance of a sum of Rs. 2,56,65,074/- being the provision made for leave encashment in the current assessment year on the basis of actuarial valuation." 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case vide ITA Nos. 1376 & 1377/K/2010 for Assessment Year 2006-07 and ITA No. 858/K/2011 for Assessment Year 200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sentative did not raise any objection. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the records of the case. We find that Tribunal on identical issue in ITA No. 1787/Kol./2008 in the case of M/s. Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. has observed at para 12 in page 6 as under:- "12. Ground No. 5 of the revenue's appeal is against the relief allowed by the CIT(A.) in respect of provision for leave encashment which was deleted by the CIT(A.) following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. (supra). It was pointed out by the ld. DR that the Hon'ble Apex Court in"SLP (Civil) 22889 of 2008 has stayed the operation of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee has earned tax free dividend income of Rs. 25,26,257/- and added back a sum of Rs. 25,263/- being 1% of the dividend income as estimated expenditure incurred on earning such dividend income. Assessing Officer did not accept the same and he computed the expenditure at Rs. 5,42,467/- in terms of Rule 6D of the I. T. Rules, 1962 and accordingly added the balance of Rs. 5,17,204/-. CIT(A) determined 2% of such tax free income equivalent to Rs. 50,526/- as estimated expenditure in relation to exempted income of Rs. 25,26,257/-. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. We find that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom.) has already held applicability of Rule 8D ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Assessing Officer shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant and germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case" We further find that the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench on the self same facts in the case of Sagrika Goods & Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, I.T.A No. 1278/Kol/2010, Assessment Year 2005-06 dated 24th September, 2010 has held as under: "5. Heard the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and the decisions relied on by the Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee cited supra. We find that on the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A, this Bench of the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that this disall....