, G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA , AM M.A. NO. 150/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 5879/MUM/2012, A.Y .2009 -10) GODREJ INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, PLANT 11, PIROJSHANAGAR, VIKROLI (E), MUMBAI 400 079 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 10(2)(3), ROOM NO.430, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACG1301H APPLICANT .. RESPONDENT APPLICANTS BY : SHRI FALEE H. BILIMORIA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHRIKANT NAMDEO / DATE OF HEARING : 01/01/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/01/2016 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.5879/MUM/2012 DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2015. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STATING TH AT DUE TO SOME TYPO ERROR RECTIFIABLE MISTAKES HAVE ARISEN IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH NEED TO BE RECTIFIED. LD. D.R FAIRLY CONCEDED TO T HIS. M.A. NO150/MUM/2015 2 3. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CO NTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE FIND THAT SOME TYPO ERROR NEED TO BE RECTIFIED AS FOLLOWS: (I) ITA NO.6085/MUM/2012 HAS TO BE READ AS ASSESSE ES APPEAL. (II) ITA NO.5879/MUM/2012 HAS TO BE READ AS REVENU ES APPEAL. (III) AT PARA-3 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAG E-2 THE REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL NEED TO BE INCORPORATED INSTEAD OF GROUND OF APPEAL MENTIONED THEREIN AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W. RULE 8D, MADE BY THE AO. 1(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SUO-MOTO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REASONABLE AS IT WAS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC WORKING. 2.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PROVIDED THE WORKING AS TO HOW THE SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A WERE COMPUTED . 3(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SEC. 14A IS NOT APPLICABL E FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO CONSIDER THE D ISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AMOUNTING TO RS.3,1O,04,504/-, AS COMPUTED BY AO, WHILE COMPUTIN G BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JBOF THE ACT. 3(C) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) FUR THER ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U] S.14A TO RS.1,08,11,971/- FOR TH E PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB OF THE ACT. (IV) THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA-7 ON PAGE-3 WIL L BE READ AS UNDER:- 7. IN ITA NO.5879/MUM/2012, SINCE THE ISSUE IS RE LATING TO SECTION 14A AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 115JB, THE ISSUE WOULD BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH AS PER OUR DIRECTIONS IN ITA NO.6085/MUM/2012. NEE DLESS TO MENTION M.A. NO150/MUM/2015 3 THAT LD.CIT(A) WILL NOT BE PREJUDICED BY HIS FINDI NGS GIVEN IN THE EARLIER ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/01/2016 SD/- SD/- ( SAKTIJIT DEY) (N.K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 06/01/2016 . . ./ VM , SR. PS ! '#$ % /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %$' / THE APPELLANT 2. !(' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( %$ ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. #*+ ! ,- , %$ %,- , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. +./ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (#$ ! //TRUE COPY// $ / $ DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) %$ %,- , / ITAT, MUMBAI