Itxa/2168/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, 6, Mumbai v. Instant Holdings Ltd

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2168 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Instant Holdings Ltd.(sucessor to M/s. Instant Trading &Investment Co. Ltd.) ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Padma Divakar for the appellant. Mr. B.V. Jhaveri for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2013 P.C. :- 1.In this appeal by the revenue for the assessment year 2005-06, following substantial questions of law have been raised for our consideration:- (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in observing that Rule 8D cannot be applied retrospectively in the light of the decision of the Bombay law, the Tribunal was correct in observing that Rule 8D cannot be applied retrospectively in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT without appreciating the fact that their Lordship had upheld the contentions of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in its nature ? (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to re-examine the disallowance u/s.14A in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT without appreciating the fact that disallowance u/s.14A was made by the assessing officer on reasonable basis in the ratio of interest attributable to the investment, which fetches exempted income ?law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the assessing officer to re-examine the disallowance u/s.14A in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT without appreciating the fact that disallowance u/s.14A was made by the assessing officer on reasonable basis in the ratio of interest attributable to the investment, which fetches exempted income ? 2.Since the Tribunal by the impugned order has restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer to reappreciate the matter keeping in view the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT & Anr. reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom), we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)