Shri Rathilal v. Shah

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1666 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. Shri Rathilal V. Shah ..Respondent. Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal for the appellant. Dr. Shivram with Ajay R. Singh and Paras Savla 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 questions of law has been proposed to be raised for consideration of this Court:- A.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) is reasonable and no inference is required by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom) when the same is pending before Supreme Court ?was right in law in holding that the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) is reasonable and no inference is required by relying on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Ltd. 328 ITR 81 (Bom) when the same is pending before Supreme Court ? B.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Rule 8D is applicable with effect from 2008-09 despite the fact that the High Court upheld the contentions of the Union of India that Rule D is reasonable in its nature and without appreciating the fact that the matter is subjudice and it is too early to decide whether the provision of Sec. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D having prospective effect is correct in law?was right in law in holding that the Rule 8D is applicable with effect from 2008-09 despite the fact that the High Court upheld the contentions of the Union of India that Rule D is reasonable in its nature and without appreciating the fact that the matter is subjudice and it is too early to decide whether the provision of Sec. 14A r.w.s Rule 8D having prospective effect is correct in law? 2.The Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. V/s. DCIT& Anr. Reported in [2010] 328 ITR 81 (Bom) and also the same is applied only prospectively from 2008-09. It is further held by the Tribunal that the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is reasonable. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)