TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 45
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed. 3. In the second ground, the revenue raised the issue of allowing depreciation on leased out assets, when the related transactions were purely financial transactions. 4. At the outset, the ld.AR submitted that the issue raised by the revenue in second ground of appeal stands covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No.615/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) order dated 4.11.2015 and therefore by applying the same analogy, the issue be decided in favour of the assessee and the ground raised by the revenue be rejected. 5. The ld.DR fairly agreed with the contentions raised by the assessee. 6. After considering the rival submission and on perusal of material placed before us including the order of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....broken period interest as not a part of the cost of securities and should not have been allowed as deduction. 8. We also find that the issue raised by the revenue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision rendered by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No.820/Mum/2014 (AY-2010-11) vide order dated 4.11.2015 and therefore the ld.AR prayed that by applying the said decision, the issue be decided in favour of the assessee and the ground raised by the revenue be rejected. 9. The ld.DR fairly agreed with the contentions raised by the assessee. 10. After considering the rival submissions and on perusal of material placed before us including the order of the Tribunal (supra) in assessee's own case, we find that the issue stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ers passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In deciding this issue, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have merely followed the judgment of this court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation v. CIT reported in [2002] 258 ITR 601 (Bom). On going through the said judgment, we find that question (B) reproduced above and projected as substantial by Mr. Suresh Kumar is squarely answered by the judgment of this court in the case of American Express International Banking Corporation (supra). In view thereof, we do not find that even question (B) gives rise to any substantial question of law that needs to be answered by this court.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r considering the contentions of the assessee by observing as under (5.2 of appellate order): "5.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the ld. AR I have also gone through he decision relied on by the AO and ld. AR. I find that the same issue had come up for consideration before the ld. CIT(A)-6 in appellant's own case for the immediately preceding AY 2010-11. The submissions made by the appellant is also similar. After duly considering the submission of the appellant, the Lf. CIT(A) in appeal No. CIT(A)-6/IT-108/Rg-2(3)/12-13 dated 21.10.2013 has held after detailed discussion in para 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 that disallowance has to be computed as per rule 8D. In doing so, he has relied on the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrongly invoked. The second alternative plea of the ld. AR was that all the investments in securities yielding the tax free income was held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance was called for . 16. On the other hand, the ld.DR while opposing the arguments of the ld. AR submitted that the AO has duly recorded due satisfaction while involving the provisions of section 14A r.w.r.8D.The ld DR submitted that it is mandatory to apply the provisions of section 14A rule 8D from AY 2008-09 and the was correctly applied by the AO and affirmed by the CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that even if the shares are held as stock in trade the dividend income was exempt and disallowance has to be made. 17. Having considered the rival submission....