Uday S. Jagtap v. The Tax Appeal Is Dismissed

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1356 OF 2016 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 .. Appellant v/s. M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. .. Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the appellant Ms. Sherry Goyal a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi I/b PDS Legal for therespondent CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J. P.C. DATED : 30[th] JANUARY, 2019 1.The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) raising following questionsfor our consideration :- “(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the decision ofthe CIT(A) stating that the disallowance u/s 14A should not bemade as per Rule 8D for the assessment year under considerationrelying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in thecase of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., however, the decisionof the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not been accepted by theDepartment and Special Leave Petition has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on this issue? (i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the caseand in law, the Tribunal was correct in law by relying on thedecision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., wherein operation of Rule 8D wasmade prospective, disregarding the fact that method of workingof disallowance provided in Rule 8D has been accepted as areasonable method in the same judgment?” 2.The Revenue contests the preposition that Rule 8D inserted in theRules w.e.f. year 2008-09 would have only prospective application.The Revenue concedes that the said position was declared by this Courtin the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT,328 ITR 81. However, at the time of filing of the appeal, the Revenuehad carried the said judgment of this Court in appeal before theSupreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court has also confirmed thedecision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd.401 ITR 445. In that view of the matter, no question of law arises. 3.The tax appeal is dismissed. (M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)