Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-27, Mumbai v. Bank of India
[Citation -2020-LL-0123-64]

Citation 2020-LL-0123-64
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-27, Mumbai
Respondent Name Bank of India
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/01/2020
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags retrospective effect
Bot Summary: This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is preferred against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench Mumbai, Mumbai in Income Tax Appeal Nos. Following three questions have been proposed as substantial questions of law by the revenue in the present appeal : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon. Tribunal was correct in law, in holding that the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, are not applicable to assessments prior to AY 2008- 09, even if such tool made available to AO at the time of assessment was considered by him as fair and reasonable and used as such Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon. Tribunal was correct in law, in holding that the amendment to section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to bring all the companies (including companies to whom proviso to sub-section of section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, applies) is not applicable in the assessment year under consideration without appreciating that the said amendment is clarificatory in nature and, thus, retrospective in effect 4. Mr.Kumar, learned standing counsel very fairly submits that in so far question No.(a) is concerned, the issue raised therein has been concluded by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., 2018 90 taxmann.com2(SC) wherein it has been held that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to assessment year 2008-09. 4.1 In so far the present appeal is concerned, the assessment year in question is 2007-08. In so far question Nos.(b) and are concerned, those are also covered by the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax- LTU vs. Union of India, 2019 105 taxmann.com253(Bombay) by answering the questions in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.


Sonali Kilaje 24-ITXA-1996-17.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1996 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -27, Mumbai .. Appellant v/s. Bank of India Respondent Mr.Suresh Kumar for Appellant. Mr. Subhash S. Shetty for Respondent. CORAM: UJJAL BHUYAN, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 23, 2020. P. C.:- . Heard Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned standing counsel, revenue for appellant and Mr.Subhash Shetty, learned counsel for respondent-assessee. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act for short) is preferred against order dated 13.07.2016 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench Mumbai, Mumbai ( Tribunal for short) in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 2966- 1 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:33 ::: Sonali Kilaje 24-ITXA-1996-17.doc 3085/Mum/2014 for Assessment Year 2007-08. 3. Following three questions have been proposed as substantial questions of law by revenue in present appeal : (a) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon. Tribunal was correct in law, in holding that provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, are not applicable to assessments prior to AY 2008- 09, even if such tool made available to AO at time of assessment was considered by him as fair and reasonable and used as such? (b) Whether on facts and in circumstance of case, Hon. Tribunal was correct in law in holding that provisions of section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961, are not applicable to assessee to whom proviso to sub-section (2) of section 211 of Companies Act, 1956, applies i.e. companies which are not required to prepare its profit & loss account in accordance with Part- II & III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956 without appreciating that under section 115JB(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961, every company is mandatorily required to prepare profit & loss account in accordance with provisions of Part-II & III of Schedule VI of 2 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:33 ::: Sonali Kilaje 24-ITXA-1996-17.doc Companies Act, 1956, for income tax purposes? (c) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Hon. Tribunal was correct in law, in holding that amendment to section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961, to bring all companies (including companies to whom proviso to sub-section (2) of section 211 of Companies Act, 1956, applies) is not applicable in assessment year under consideration without appreciating that said amendment is clarificatory in nature and, thus, retrospective in effect? 4. Mr.Kumar, learned standing counsel very fairly submits that in so far question No.(a) is concerned, issue raised therein has been concluded by Supreme Court in favour of assessee and against revenue in case of Commissioner of Income Tax- 5 Mumbai vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., [2018] 90 taxmann.com2(SC) wherein it has been held that Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied to any assessment year prior to assessment year 2008-09. This was also view of this Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s. Deputy CIT, 328 ITR 81/194 Taxman 203(Bom.) which view has been 3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:33 ::: Sonali Kilaje 24-ITXA-1996-17.doc upheld by Supreme Court. 4.1 In so far present appeal is concerned, assessment year in question is 2007-08. Therefore, in view of decision of Supreme Court as above, provisions of Rule 8D will not be applicable. Consequently, question No.(a) does not arise. 5. In so far question Nos.(b) and (c) are concerned, those are also covered by decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax- LTU vs. Union of India, [2019] 105 taxmann.com253(Bombay) by answering questions in favour of assessee and against revenue. 6. In light of above, we find no merit in appeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN,J.) 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 10:10:33 ::: Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-27, Mumbai v. Bank of India
Report Error