Itxa/1297/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax - 8 v. Goldiam International Limited

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1297 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Goldiam International Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Arvind Pinto for the appellant. None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal filed by the revenue relating to assessment year 2006-07, the following question of law is proposed to be raised for our consideration:- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) wherein CIT(A) had directed the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s.14A in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating law, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) wherein CIT(A) had directed the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s.14A in view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co.Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating the fact that the issue of disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D, has not attained finality as the Department has contested the matter before the Supreme Court which is pending for final decision ? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating the fact that their Lordship in the said cases had upheld the contention of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in its nature ?law, the Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of CIT(A) in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (328 ITR 81) (Bom) without appreciating the fact that their Lordship in the said cases had upheld the contention of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in its nature ? 2.Since the Tribunal by following the decision of this Court in the matter Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) has restored the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh decision, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)