k 25 itxa 1209.12 os.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION rt INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1209 OF 2012 Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 ... Appellant. ou V/s. M/s. Bharat Bijlee Ltd. ... Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for Appellant. C Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent. CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI h AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. ig DATED : 5 NOVEMBER, 2014. P.C. : H 1 This Appeal by Revenue challenging concurrent orders run by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 25 th June, y 2010 and another of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ba Bench dated 18th April, 2012. Assessment Year is 2003-2004. om 2 question of law as termed as substantial at page 3 reads as under: Whether on facts and in circumstances of B case and in law, Hon'ble ITAT is justified in holding that assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 80M of Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating fact that assessee was not eligible for deduction under Section 80M in view of provisions contained in 1/4 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:40:32 ::: k 25 itxa 1209.12 os.doc Section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961? rt 3 Mr. Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of Revenue would ou submit that in this case return of income was filed on 28 th November 2003. case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was C completed on 30th November, 2005. total income of Assessee was determined at Rs. Nil after setting off brought forward loss for h Assessment Year 2000-2001 and 2002-2003. That order of ig assessment dated 30th November 2005 was subjected to proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Commissioner H passed order under that provision on 18th November, 2008 directing Assessing Officer to reframe assessment, in pursuance thereof y Assessing Officer on 3rd November, 2008 completed said ba Assessment by disallowing deduction under section 80M amounting to Rs.30,37,838/-. om 4. aggrieved Assessee carried matter before Commissioner and who allowed its Appeal. B 5. We do not find any justification for argument of Revenue that Section 80M having been deleted from statute book and with effect from 1st April, 2004 Commissioner and Tribunal would 2/4 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:40:32 ::: k 25 itxa 1209.12 os.doc not have taken any note thereof nor judgment of this Court in case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income rt Tax & Another reported in (2010) 223 ITR 97 (Bom.). matter ou should have been looked at and squarely in light of section 115-O(1) and 115-O(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961. In relation to this C both Commissioner and Tribunal held that it is impossible to take any view other than one taken by this Court s Division Bench in h aforementioned judgment. Commissioner found himself to be bound by this Judgment and equally Tribunal. Commissioner ig has held that Assessee received dividend from domestic H companies and he had paid dividend of Rs.56,51,560/- on 13th August, 2003 namely before due date of filing of return of income i.e. 31 st y October, 2003. Hence, he satisfied twin conditions stipulated by ba section 80M. question of Assessee being required to comply with section 115-O is concerned, in given facts and circumstances om does not arise. We do not see how such conclusion reached by Tribunal in affirming view taken by Commissioner and particularly by relying upon judgment of this Court can be termed B as perverse. deletion of section 80M of Income Tax Act, 1961 or its omission by Finance Act with effect from 1 st April, 2004 and substitution of section 115-O by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2003 has not been confused by Tribunal and 3/4 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:40:32 ::: k 25 itxa 1209.12 os.doc particularly in relation to its applicability. Tribunal as also Division Bench of this Court have set out circumstances, in which rt these two provisions would operate. Therefore, we do not see any ou reason to deviate or depart from binding judgment rendered by this Court. C 6. Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law as controversy is fully covered by Division Bench judgment of this h Court. Appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. ig H (A.A. SAYED, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) katkam y ba om B 4/4 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2015 13:40:32 ::: Commissioner of Income-tax - 6 v. M/s. Bharat Bijlee Ltd