The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 v. M/S. Hirak Leasing & Investment Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 423 OF 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2. ..Appellant. v. M/s. Hirak Leasing & Investment Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant with Vimal Bajpayee for the Appellant.None for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 18[th] March, 2013. PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08 following questions of law have been raised for our consideration a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case The Tribunal was correct in law in restoring the issue of dis-allowance u/s.14A to the file of the CIT(A) and upholding the decision of the CIT(A) not to apply Rule 8D for making the dis-allowance u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? b)Whether on the fact and in circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in restoring the issue of dis- allowance u/s.14A to the file of the CIT(A) thereby overlooking the fact that the Assessing Officer had made the dis-allowance as per Rule 8D, which has been accepted as a reasonable method for working out the dis-allowance u/s.14A in the judgment of this court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs, DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81? 2)Since the Tribunal by impugned order has restored the matter to the file of CIT(A) to pass a fresh order, we see no reason to entertain the appeal at this stage. However, we make it clear the CIT(A) will keep in mind the decision of this Court in the matter of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 and other decisions relevant to the issue while deciding the issue restored to him. 3)The Appeal is disposed of with the above directions. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)