Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S. Birla Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2015 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 … Appellant vs. M/s. Birla Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd. … Respondent …....... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the Respondent. …....... P. C. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ.DATE : 6[th] NOVEMBER, 2017 1.Heard. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. The appellant hastaken an exception to the judgment and order dated 19[th] December, 2014passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Mumbai. By theimpugned Order, the Appellate Tribunal dealt with assessment year 2007-08and 2009-10. 2.With view to appreciate the submissions canvassed across the bar it isnecessary to advert to the basic facts. The present appeal relates to theassessment year 2007-08. The Order of the Assessment Officer waschallenged by the respondent assessee by preferring an appeal before theCIT(Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal by accepting the submission that Rule 8D as amended with effect from 1[st] April, 2007 had noretrospective operation. 3. The view taken by the first Appellate Authority has been confirmed bythe impugned judgment and order by holding that Rule 8D will apply onlyfrom the Assessment year 2008-09. This reasoning recorded by the AppellateTribunal is in conformity with the decision of the Court in the case of Godrej& Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT[1] Bombay. As far as this Court isconcerned, admittedly it continues to be bound by the decision in the case ofGodrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Supra). 4.The SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision in the case ofM/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. has been dismissed on the groundof delay. 5. Hence no substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed. (A.K. MENON, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.) 1 (2010) 328 ITR 082