Itxa/95/2018 Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2 v. Sharekhan Ltd

Digitally signedby GAURIGAURIAMITGAEKWADAMITDate:GAEKWAD2022.03.2817:30:37+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.95 OF 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2 V/s. Sharekhan Limited ….Appellant….Respondent ---- Mr. Suresh Kumar for appellant.Mr. Hiro Rai a/w. Mr. Subhash Shetty for respondent. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 24[th] MARCH 2022 P.C.: 1 The following substantial questions of law are proposed in this appeal : QUESTIONS OF LAW 6.1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in Law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified inupholding the order of Ld. CIT(A), and directing the AO todelete the disallowance made by the AO u/s. 14A r.w. rule 8Dignoring the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in thecase of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 328 ITR 81, wherein ithas been held that the methodology of working ofdisallowance under Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962 ismandatory and is applicable from A.Y. 2008-2009? 6.2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin Law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in deleting the additionu/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(i) & (ii) while restoring the additionu/s. 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 r.w. Rule 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T.Rules, 1962 to the file of the AO? 6.3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin Law, the Hon’ble ITAT ought to have restored the entireaddition u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D instead of partly restoring theaddition u/s. 8D (2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, 1962 only? 6.4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin Law, the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in directing theAssessing Officer to treat the loss of Rs.1,92,57,672/- asbusiness loss instead of speculation loss ignoring the fact that the said loss has arisen out of transaction of shares carriedout by assessee company and, therefore, in view ofexplanation to Section 73 of the I.T. Act, 1961 the said losswas speculation loss? 2We have considered the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal (ITAT) pronounced on 24[th] March 2017 which is impugned in thisappeal and we find that the ITAT has arrived at finding on facts. On theissue as to whether the assessee had its own funds or borrowed funds, eventhe Revenue does not dispute the fact that the assessee had its surplusfunds. With this background, we do not see any substantial question of lawarising. 3As regards the proposed question no.4, Mr. Suresh Kumar statesthat it is already covered and therefore, need not be considered in thisappeal. 4That leaves only the three remaining questions. In our view, theTribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles tothe given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysedand correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not thinkthat question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 5The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no orderas to costs. (N.R. BORKAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)