TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (2) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)- 3, Mumbai, passed on 22/02/2010 for the assessment year 2006-07 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance of ₹ 3,88,852/- out of expenses of ₹ 3,95,482/- claimed by your appellant against his interest and remuneration from a partnership firm i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y your appellant, be deleted." 2. Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed ₹ 3,51,90,706/- as exempt income u/s 10(2A) of the act in respect of share of profit from firms M/s Wadia Ghandy & Co. (Mumbai) and M/s Wadia Ghandy & Co. where assessee was a partner. Against the said shares, the assessee claimed various expenses to the tune of ₹ 4,03,482/-. The AO treated p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Shri Sudhir Kapadia in ITA No. 7888/M/03 for AY 2000-01 vide order dated 26th February, 2007. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has not controverted the facts available on record. 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the ITAT in the case of Sudhir Kapadia (supra) held as under:- "5. When we examine the issue in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in the hands of a partner is all together tax free; on the other hand the share is tax suffered income in the hands of the firm. Therefore, sect. 14A is not applicable in that case. The share income of the firm is exempt from the tax u/s 10(2A), not in the absolute sense. It is only to avoid double taxation; once in the hands of the firm and secondly in the hands of the partner. Therefore, we f....