HINDUJA VENTURES LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUJA TMT LTD), MUMBAI V. DCIT RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 400/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6250 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHIVENDAD KHARE
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO. 400/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 HINDUJA VENTURES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUJA TMT LTD.) MUMBAI 400 093 PAN AAACH2058N VS. DCIT, RANGE 8 (2) MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : -NONE- FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI DHIVENDAD KHARE ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XV, MUMBAI AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. THE ONLY GROUND URGED BY THE ASSESS EE-COMPANY READS AS UNDER : 1. THE CIT (A)-15, MUMBAI HAS ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN R ELATION TO DIVIDEND INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT SHOULD BE RESTRI CTED TO 5% AS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10% AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE DISALLOWAN CE BY RS.96.60 LACS APPLYING RULE 8D PURSUANT TO SEC. 14A REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR A ND THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 8D IS UNJUSTI FIED AND UNCALLED FOR. THE APPELLANT SUBMIT THAT SINCE R ULE 8D HAS COME INTO EFFECT FROM MARCH, 2008 IT HAS NO APPLICABILITY IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND FURTHER SIN CE RULE 8D IS ARBITRARILY DISALLOWING EXPENSES WITHOUT 2 HAVING ANY NEXUS TO EARNED INCOME IT IS ALSO NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC.14A. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLI CATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT IT COULD NOT ENGAGE A COUNSEL IN TIME. 3. LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. DCIT AND ANOTHE R (2010) 328 ITR 81 (BOM.) AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER COMPUTATION. 4. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APP EAL EXPARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION OF THE HONB LE HIGH COURT CITED (SUPRA), RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 CANN OT BE HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND THEREFORE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE AMOUNT DISALLOWABLE UNDE R SECTION 14A OF THE ACT, IF ANY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 VBP/- 3 COPY TO : 1. HINDUJA VENTURES LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUJA TM T LTD.) 49/50, IN CENTRE, 12 TH ROAD, MAROL, MIDC, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 093 PAN AAACH2058N 2. DCIT, RANGE 8 (2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-15, C-10/703, PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400 051. 4. CIT-8, MUMBAI. 5. DR H BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI