2016 (12) TMI 1701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... All these appeals are filed by the assessees involving the assessment years 2008-2009; 2009-10 and 2010-2011. Since, the issues raised in these appeals are inter-connected / identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard combinedly and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paras of this order. I. Cross Appeals for the AY 2008-2009 (In the case of Edelweiss Finance & Investment Ltd) ITA No.6610/M/2011 (By assessee) ITA No.7658/M/2011 (By Revenue) 2. These two cross appeals are filed against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Mumbai dated 7.7.2010. 3. In the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.6610/M/2011), the solitary issue relating to the disallowance....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7. In the cross appeal (ITA No.7658/M/2011), the Revenue raised various issues. The first issue raised in this appeal relates to the disallowance u/s 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules. Bringing our attention to the chart filed in this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT (A) granted relief on the issue of applicability of clause (ii) of Rule 8D(2) relating to interest disallowance. In this regard, CIT (A) held that the case is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Limited (313 ITR 340) (Bom). Further, CIT (A) also relied on another judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. DCIT (383 ITR 529) (Bom) and mentioned that the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) in this regard are fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Ground no.3 is dismissed. 9. Considering the our decision on ground no.3, the other issues raised in Grounds no. 4 and 5 are also dismissed being consequential in nature. Thus, Grounds no. 4 and 5 are dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. II. ITA No.1791/M/2013 (AY 2009-2010) (By Revenue) 11. This appeal filed by the Revenue on 6.3.2013 is against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Mumbai dated 20.12.2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised 4 grounds in toto. 12. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the issue rai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sue. Similarly, referring to the relief granted by the CIT (A) in excluding the investments in stock-in-trade for the purpose of disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, after hearing the Ld Representatives of both the parties, we are of the opinion, the said conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) are fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Further, it is relevant to mention that while calculating the average investments, only the dividend yielded investments should alone be considered for quantifying the disallowance under clause (iii) of Rule 8D(2) of the Rules. In our opinion, on this issue also, the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) are sustainable. Therefore, the order of the CIT (A) on this issue is fa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide Ground no.3 of its appeal ITA No.7658/M/2011 for the AY 2008-2009. While adjudicating the ground, we upheld the decision of the CIT (A), who relied on the binding judgments while granting relief to the assessee. Considering the commonality of the issue, our decision given therein squarely applies to the instant appeal too. Accordingly, we upheld the decision of the CIT (A) on the issue and grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. IV. Cross Appeals for the AY 2008-2009 (In the case of Edelweiss Commodities Ltd) ITA No.6611/M/2011 (By Assessee) ITA No.7662/M/2011 (By Revenue) 20. Both these cross appeals are filed against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Mumbai date....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T (A) in deleting the addition made by disallowing mark-to-market loss claimed by the assessee. This issue is identical to that of the ones raised by the Revenue vide Ground no.3 of its appeal ITA No.7658/M/2011 for the AY 2008- 2009. While adjudicating the ground, we upheld the decision of the CIT (A), who relied on the binding judgments while granting relief to the assessee. Considering the commonality of the issue, our decision given therein squarely applies to the instant appeal too. Accordingly, we upheld the decision of the CIT (A) on the issue and ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 25. Considering the our decision on ground no.3, the other issues raised in Grounds no. 4 and 5 are also dismissed being consequential in natur....