Suren Rd, Chakala, Mumbai400 093 PAN No. AADCM9239K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. S/Shri Chetan Karia & Rajesh Shah, AR Revenue by .. Shri Suman Kumar, DR Date of hearing .. 02022017 Date of pronouncement .. 07042017 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: These five appeals by the assessee are arising out of the common order of CIT(A)38, Mumbai, in appeal Nos. CIT(A)38/IT356,357,358 & 359/201112, CIT(A)38/IT185/201213 dated 29082013. The Assessments were framed by DCIT Circle46, Mumbai for the A.Y. 200506, 200708, 200607,200809 & 200910 vide order dated 30112011, 30112011, 31012013, 13122011 u/s 143(3) read with section 153A read with section 148 read with section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 2. The first common issue in all these five appeals of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the ITA No.6687 to 6691/Mum/2013 Multi Commodity Exchange of (I) Ld.; AYs: 0506, 0607,0708,0809,0910 expenses relatable to exempted income by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act reads with Rule 8D of the Rules. For this assessee has raised identical worded ground in all these years. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the AO estimated the disallowance for AY 200506, 200607 & 200708 at 3% of exempt income by invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. The assessee before CIT(A) as well as before AO contended that 1% disallowance should be made of the exempt income. The CIT(A) after discussing the facts upheld the disallowance made by AO at 3% by observing in Para 9.1 to 9.4 as under: "9.1 For the A.Yrs.200506, 200607 & 200708, the appellant computed the disallowances based on the indirect expenses such as rent, salary, staff welfare, telephone & fax charges for each assessment year as under: 9.2 The disallowance made by the appellant is meager compared to the total expenditure incurred under the heads of expenses such as salaries, bonus, staff welfare, rent & services charges, travelling and conveyance, communication expenses etc. and the relevant details are reproduced as under: Page 2 of 13 ITA No.6687 to 6691/Mum/2013 Multi Commodity Exchange of (I) Ld.; AYs: 0506, 0607,0708,0809,0910 9.3 It can also be seen that the quantum of disallowance made by the assessing officer small as compared to the dividend income earned on the investments made. The dividend income and total investments earned by the assessee and the total receipts as per P & L a/c. are given as under: 9.4 The investment decision requires substantial market research, day today analysis of market trends, reporting and accounting, making telephone calls, fax, cmails etc. To carry out such work, staff support is necessary, though the appellant claims that the service of distributer of mutual fund was utilized for such services and the assessee had not carried out any activity. This claim of the appellant is not acceptable. No person would blindly invest without taking its own investment decisions. The appellant's role will always be there in investment decisions. This requires maintenance and monitoring of such activities by its own staff concerned. Therefore, the disallowance under the administrative expenditure such as salary, staff welfare, rent, travelling and conveyance, comm