TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order. ITA No.4449/M/2003 (AY 1998-99) 2. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 6.6.2003 is against the order of the CIT (A)-XXXII, Mumbai dated 31.3.2003. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to recomputed the book profit u/s 115JA after considering the debit of bad debts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of interest accrued on securities held by the assessee on day to day basis. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the AY 1997-98. 4. After hearing the Ld DR for the Revenue and on perusal of para 2 of MA No.730/Mum/2012 (arising out of ITA No. 4448/Mum/2003) for the AY 1997-98, dated 17.5.2013, we are of the opinion that the said Ground nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of this appeal should be dismissed in limine. That leaves, Ground no.5 along for adjudication now and the same relates to the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in respect of the exempt income. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 10.54 Crs on the "principle of proportionate". CIT (A) deleted the said addition. Therefore, the Revenue is in appeal. 5. Before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that assessee has sufficient funds and theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tribunal (supra) as well as the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Agrovet (supra), we are of the opinion that the disallowance @ 2% of the exempt income as upheld by the Hon'ble High Court, is appropriate. The said judgment was not referred to by the Tribunal in its orders cited in para 5 above. For the sake of completeness of this order the relevant para of the High Court's judgment is extracted as follows: "4. So far as question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal in its impugned order dated 17.9.2010 while applying the decision of this court in the matter of Godrej (supra) has disallowed the expenditure only to the extent of 2% of the total exempt income earned by the respondent-assessee on the basis it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of broken period interest on purchase of securities. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO by the reduction of the exemption and further erred in deleting the increase in book profits made by AO in terms of Explanation-F to section 115J. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to verify the claim of the assessee as regards indexation cost in respect of bonds and debentures and to accordingly rectify the computation of capital gains." 10. As mentioned above, while adjudicating the Revenue'....