Itxa/1265/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 v. M/S.datamatics Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1265 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax-8 V/s.M/s. Datamatics Ltd. ..Appellant...Respondent. Mr. A. K. Saxena, for the Appellant.Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 5[th] MARCH, 2013. Heard. 2In this Appeal by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2002-03, following questions have been raised for our consideration. (i)Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no infirmity of the order of the CIT(A) wherein the CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating the fact that the issue of disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, has not attained finality as the Department has contested the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is pending for final decision? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating the fact that their Lordships in the said case had upheld the contention of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in its nature? 3Since the Tribunal has upheld the order of the CIT(A) remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision in the light of the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81, we see no reason to entertain proposed questions of law. 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)