The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2,Mumbai v. Raymond Ltd

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1560 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-2,Mumbai ...Appellant Versus Raymond Ltd. ...Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for appellant. Mr.Percy J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr.Mohan Salian, Ms.Vaijayanta Shete and Mr.Jainuddin Khan i/b. Gagrats for respondents. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. March 20, 2012. P.C. 1.This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 1 May 2009; the assessment year to which the appeal relates being AY 2001-02. The following questions of law are raised: (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made on account of provision for doubtful debts for purpose of computation of income under Section 115JB without considering the retrospective insertion of clause (i) in Explanation 1 to Section 115JB with retrospective effect from 01.04.2001 allowing such addition; (ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition under Section 94(7) made by disallowing the loss of Rs.22,34,171/- on sale of units of mutual fund? 2.Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue and the counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee are agreed that question (i) would have to be restored for a decision afresh by the Tribunal having regard to the amendment brought about to Section 115JB by insertion of Clause (i) to Explanation 1 by the Finance No.2 Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2001. Consequently and as agreed the aforesaid issue is restored to the Tribunal for a decision afresh on merits. 3.Question (ii) would not raise any substantial question of law since it is common ground that the issue would stand covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd.[1] The appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)