TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter the Rules). The assessee has disallowed the interest etc. 2. During hearing of these appeals, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that identical issue arose for consideration for Assessment year 2008-09, wherein, the Tribunal send these issues to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs HDFC Bank Ltd. 366 ITR 505 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom). Assessee also filed paper book running into 6 pages containing balance sheet as on 31/03/2010. On the other hand, the ld. DR, defended the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by adding that the impugned years may also be sent to the file of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbai dated 30.6.2011 for the assessment year 2008-2009. 2. In this appeal, assessee raised the following grounds which read as under: " The CIT (A) erred,- 1.1. in confirming a disallowance u/s 14A by mechanically applying Rule-8D. 1.2. Without prejudice, in erroneously computing the disallowance by including interest pertaining to loans specifically taken for other purposes. 2.1. in disallowance of interest assumed to be extended on investment in property at Bharat Diamond Bourse and other similar advances given which were business assets. 2.2. in not appreciating that no funds had been specifically borrowed for the purposes of making this investment and that hence noting were disallowable on this account. 2.3. in not appreciatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvoked the provisions of section 14A read with Rule-8D of the Act and relied on the binding judgment of the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 328 ITR 81. CIT (A) confirmed the same. In this background of the facts, Ld Counsel mentioned that invoking the said provisions mechanically without rejecting the claim of the assessee ie Rs. 55,530/- is the expenditure incurred for earning of the exempt income, is unsustainable in law and relied on the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd (supra). In this regard, Ld Counsel prayed for setting aside the issue for reexamination and applying of the jurisdictional High Court judgment on this issue. 3.2. On the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital, reserves and interest free loans, which is quantitatively much higher than the advances given by the assessee. It is the claim of the assessee that considering the jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340 (Bom), the benefit should be given to the assessee considering the existence of excess interest-free funds. Further, Ld Counsel fairly mentioned that the facts about the issue of existence of excess funds were not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, for this purpose, this issue may also be set aside for examining the same afresh in the light of the binding judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd (supra). 4.1. On the o....