The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai v. M/S.nelco Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1335 OF 2012 AND INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1336 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 8, Mumbai Versus M/s.Nelco Limited ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr.Tejveer Singh for the appellant.None for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 10[th] January 2013 P.C. : 1.In these appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2007-2008 and 2006-2007, the following common questions of law have been formulated for the consideration of this Court. a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in observing that Rule 8D cannot be applied retrospectively in the light of the decision of the Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 without appreciating the fact that their lordships had upheld the contentions of the Union of India that Rule 8D is reasonable in nature ? b)Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the AO to recompute the disallowance u/s.14A in the light of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81 without appreciating the fact that an SLP has been filed before the Apex Court in respect of the judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Limited Vs. DCIT which is pending for decision ?” 2.We find that in the impugned order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V/s. DCIT reported in 328 ITR 81. In view thereof, no fault can be found with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The grievance of the Revenue that the department has not accepted the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited (supra) and SLP has been filed before the Apex Court is no ground for the orders of this Court not being following by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3.In view of above, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)