Ita/202/2017 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Abhishek Industries Ltd., (Now Trident Ltd.), E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. CM-5992-C[][-2019 in/andITA-202-2017(O&M) Date of decision: 28.03.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana | ... Appellan Versus| M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd. | ... Responden CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,CHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGECHIEF JUSTICEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present: |Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant.Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with|Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent.REMs. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with|Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent.RE KRISHNA MURARI, C.J.(Oral) This appeal by the revenue raises the following question of law: “Whether on fact and circumstances of the case and in|law the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in confirming the order ofCIT(A) in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,12,26,829/- madeunder Section 14A of the Income Tax Act to Rs.50,000/-holding that the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable forA.Y. 2006-07 while the A.O. had restored to calculating thedisallowance under Section 14A which as on date was the most!reasonable and scientific method also approved by thelegislature for making such disallowance?.” Parties are not at issue that the question of law regarding theretrospective applicability of Rule 8D to assessment year 2008-06 has beenthe subject matter of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case tiltedCommissioner of [Income Tax 5 MumbaVioEssar Teleholdings Ltd.>(2018) 3 SCC 253, and the question of law has been answered in favour ofthe assessee. The question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered bythe said judgment. © The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of theaforesaid judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. ( Krishna Murari) |Chief Justice ( Arun Palli )Judge 28.03.2019Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned:YESWhether Reportable: NO