Jhp Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 192/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2016AY 2010-11
Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwaljhp Securities Ltd., Dev Neo Vikram, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income “B”Wing, 2Nd Floor, Sahakar Nagar Tax, Range-4 (3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, M. K. Marg, Mumbai 20 Chs, Above Audi Car Showroom, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 53 Pan:Aaacj 2847 H Appellant .. Respondent .. Appellant By Sri Dev Datta Mainkar, Ar Respondent By .. Sri Durga Dutt, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 18-08-16 Date Of Pronouncement .. 18-08-16 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (A)-8, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit (A)-8/Cir.4/165/2013-14 Dated 17-10-2014. Assessment Was Framed By The Acit- 4(3), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Vide His Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 22-03-2013. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A) Confirming The Disallowance Of Expenses Relatable To Exempted Income By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D (2) (Ii) Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter “The Rules”) At Rs.10,49,330/-.
Section 143(3)Section 14A
…fore the CIT (A) also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 340 (Bom.) and also recent judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 505 (Bom.). 3 But, neither the CIT (A) nor the AO has dealt with the issue of availability of funds and the CIT (A) just confirmed the addition. The CIT (A) only recorded the following findings in Para 2.3 of his order:- “2.3 During the course of appellate proceedings, it was submitted that average value investment has been wrongly computed by the A…