Itxa/1319/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 v. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., ( Now Merged With Hdfcbank Ltd)

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1319 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. (now merged with HDFC Bank Ltd.) ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumaer 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 2004-05, the following question of law is proposed to be raised for our consideration:- A.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in restoring the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A to the CIT(A), thereby overlooking the fact that the A.O. had made the disaallowance which ought to have been upheld as the same was made on a reasonable basis ?ITAT was correct in restoring the issue of disallowance u/s. 14A to the CIT(A), thereby overlooking the fact that the A.O. had made the disaallowance which ought to have been upheld as the same was made on a reasonable basis ? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in restoring the issue of disalloance u/s. 14A to the file of CIT(A) and directing to make the disaloance in line with the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (328 ITR 81) in which it is held that Rule 8D is not retrospective, thereby overking the fact that the Department has not accepted this decision and SLP is filed against the said decision ?ITAT was correct in restoring the issue of disalloance u/s. 14A to the file of CIT(A) and directing to make the disaloance in line with the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg. co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT (328 ITR 81) in which it is held that Rule 8D is not retrospective, thereby overking the fact that the Department has not accepted this decision and SLP is filed against the said decision ? 2.In the light of the decisions of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Reliance Utility and Power Ltd. reported in [2009] 313 I.T.R 349 (Bom) and Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), the Tribunal has restored the matter to CIT(A) to pass fresh order. In view of the Tribunal following the decisions of this Court, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)