The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I0, Mumbai v. M.s.sanklecha,Jj.date : 11[Th] January, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1203 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I0, Mumbai..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Godrej Industries Limited..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Appellant.Mr. F. V. Irani with Mr. A. K. Jasani, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 11[th] JANUARY, 2013. In this Appeal, the Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in holding that the disallowance made by the A.O and upheld by ld CIT(A), though restricted the quantum by applying Rule 8D of the Act was not justified in applying the said Rule 8D to quantify the disallowance u/s 14A? (b)Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in restricting the disallowances to the extent of 5% of the income on the basis that in the earlier year CIT(A) restricted the expenses to 5% of total exempt income, overlooking that the CIT(A) while calculating the expenses in the relevant Assessment Year has taken into account the provisions of Sec. 14A of the I.T. Act while making the disallowances on proportionate basis?”. 2The Advocates for the Appellant and the Respondent states that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the order dated 8[th ]January, 2013 in the matter of The Commissioner of Income Tax, 10, Mumbai v/s. Godrej Agrovet Limited in Income Tax Appeal No.934 of 2011 in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. 3In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)