The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.national Securities Clearing Corporation Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.917 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 7, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.National Securities Clearing Corporation Limited ..Respondent. Mr.P.C. Chhotaray for the appellant.Mr.Atul K Jasani for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 5[th] February 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2006-2007, following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. “a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules has only prospective application ?law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules has only prospective application ? b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment order without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Rule 8D are retrospective in nature and the disallowance under Section 14A needs to be computed in accordance with Rule 8D ?law the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the assessment order without appreciating the fact that the provisions of Rule 8D are retrospective in nature and the disallowance under Section 14A needs to be computed in accordance with Rule 8D ? c)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that Rule 8D law, the Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that Rule 8D would provide a uniform guideline for computing the disallowance even prior to assessment years 2008-09, when it is settled law that indirect expenses have to be any way apportioned for disallowance ?” 2.Since the Tribunal by the impugned order has restored the matter to the file of the assessing officer to examine disallowance under Section 14A after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 3.The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)