Itxa/1385/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-- 2 v. Centrum Capitallimited

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1385 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Centrum Capital Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 21ST JANUARY, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal filed by the revenue relating to assessment year 2007-08, 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 ITAT was correct in setting aside the issue of determining disallowance u/s.14A to the file of the AO, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd., Mumbai V/s. DCIT when the disallowance was made following the method prescribed in Rule 8D of the law, the ITAT was correct in setting aside the issue of determining disallowance u/s.14A to the file of the AO, relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd., Mumbai V/s. DCIT when the disallowance was made following the method prescribed in Rule 8D of the itxa1385-12 Income Tax Rules, 1962, disregarding the fact that Rule 8D has been accepted as a reasonable method for working out the disallowance u/s.14A in the same judgment ? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in holding that provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable for AY 2007-08 based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai V/s. DCIT, thereby overlooking the fact that the Department has not accepted this decision and SLP is filed against the decision before the Supreme Court ?law, the ITAT was correct in holding that provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable for AY 2007-08 based on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., Mumbai V/s. DCIT, thereby overlooking the fact that the Department has not accepted this decision and SLP is filed against the decision before the Supreme Court ? 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.)