DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Marg Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 429/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6518 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUJIT KUMAR MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 429/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(1), CHENNAI. V. M/S. MARG LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S. MARG CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.), 4-318, MARG AXIS, RAJIV GANDHI SALAI, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 041. (PAN : AACCMB8770G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUJIT KUMAR MOHANTY O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 511/2009-10 DATE D 13-12-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI SUJIT KUMAR MOHANTY, DY. GENERAL M ANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NO.429/MDS/2011 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ISSU E IN THE APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 328 ITR 81 A ND HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WAS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND WOULD APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HA VE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). I T IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D FOR M AKING THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., REFERRED TO SUPRA. IT IS ALSO NOTICED TH AT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS 2007-08 WHEREAS THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND WOULD APPLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ONLY FOLLOWED THE JUDICIAL DISCI PLINE IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD., WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND I.T.A. NO.429/MDS/2011 3 DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUM STANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/06/2 011. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 30 TH JUNE, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE