DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI vs. SUASHISH DIAMONDS LTD, MUMBAI

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 03-01-2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख / Date of Pronouncement : 06-01-2017 आयकर अ�ध�नयम, 1961 क� धारा 254(1) के अ�तग�त आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) Per Pawan Singh, J.M. �या�यक सद�य iou iou iou �संह के अनुसार: iou 1. The present appeal by Revenue u/s 253 of the Income-tax Act is against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai (for short the CIT(A) dated 12.08.2014 for Assessment Year(AY) 2007-08. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that disallowance u/s 14A should be restricted to 10% of dividend income? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts that disallowance u/s 14A were made by adopting a reasonable method as directed by Hon’ble ITAT? (iii) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and the order of the AO be restored.

2. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and gone through the order of authorities below. Ld. AR of the assessee argued that the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal are squarely covered in assessee’s own case for AY 2007-08 in ITA No. 8949/Mum/2010. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for Revenue not disputed the factual matrix of the case.

3. We have seen that similar disallowance was made in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 and the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the following order was passed: “4. After considering the rival arguments and examining the facts on record, we are of the opinion that the action of the CIT (A) cannot be upheld. Application of Rule 8D is not permissible for the impugned assessment year. While accepting that the