JAGUAR SERVICES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1855/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8746 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: FALE E H BILIMORIA
• Keywords: Rule 8D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. D.K. AGARWAL (J.M.) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (A.M.) ITA NO.1855/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 JAGUAR SERVICES P. LTD. 302, B 3 RD FLR., VINAYAK SIDDHI, C 79, D.K. SANDU MARG, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 071. PAN : AAACJ1950H VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RG.-10(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI FALEE H. BILIMORIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL, J.M. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S.14A OF THE ACT AGGREGATING TO ` 110,631/- TOWARDS THE EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME, BY RELYING ON CLAUSE2(III) OF R ULE 8D. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE UNWARRANTED AND ARBITRARY DISALLOWANCE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING GROUND, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S.14A R.W.R.8D AT ` 110,631/- AS AGAINST ` 16000/- UNDER THE SAID SUB CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE (2) OF RULE 8D AND THE DISALLOWA NCE BE RESTRICTED TO THE SAID AMOUNT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RULE 8 D READ WITH SECTIONS 14A(2) & (3) OF THE ACT, CAN BE APPLI ED RETROSPECTIVELY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ITA NO.1855/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.01.2011 INTERALIA SUBMITS AS UNDER: OUR CLIENT HAVE INFORMED US THAT THEY ARE NO LONGE R AGGRIEVED IN THE MATTER, AND THEY WISH TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FI LED BY THEM. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLO WED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FILED WHICH WAS NOT OBJECTED TO B Y THE LD DR. 3. THAT BEING SO AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SUPPOR TING MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE , THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE, THEREFORE, REJECTED BE ING NOT PRESSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- (T.R. SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 28 TH JANUARY, 2011. JANHAVI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- , MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY- , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH , MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI