RAYMOND LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 84/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 8419914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KISHAN VYAS
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS USHA DALAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D, MUMBAI .. , ! ' # , $ ', % BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ITA NO.84/MUM/2012 : ASST.YEAR 2001-2002 M/S.RAYMOND LIMITED NEW HIND HOUSE NAROTTAM MORARJEE MARG BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN : AAACR4896A. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 2(3) MUMBAI. ( &' / // / APPELLANT) ) ) ) ) / VS. ( *+&'/ RESPONDENT) &' , ,, , - - - - / APPELLANT BY : MRS.USHA DALAL *+&' , - , - , - , - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KISHAN VYAS ) , .! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2013 /01 , .! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2013 ' 2 ' 2 ' 2 ' 2 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL (AM) : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 01.11.2011 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED THROUGH VARIOUS GROUNDS IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT O F ` 2,41,21,000 U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D IN VIEW OF THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF DAGA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD. (119 TTJ 289). THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NO.84/MUM/2012. M/S.RAYMOND LIMITED. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEA R INVOLVED BEFORE US IS 2001-2002. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. MFG. CO. V. DCIT [(2010) 328 IT R 81 (BOM)] HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D CANNOT BE A PPLIED TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO 2008-2009. SINCE THE ASSES SMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 , AS SUCH RULE 8D CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING DIS ALLOWANCE U/S 14A. WE, THEREFORE, VACATE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THIS REGARD. THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR WORKING OUT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS PROVISION ON SOME `REAS ONABLE BASIS AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN GODREJ & BOYCE LTD. MFG. CO. (SUPRA). 4. 3 .4 $) 3. , 5 6, 78 9 : . , ;. <= > IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 02 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2013. ' 2 , /01 ?')4 0 , @ SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (R.S.SYAL) $ ' $ ' $ ' $ ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; ?') DATED : 02 ND AUGUST, 2013. DEVDAS* ITA NO.84/MUM/2012. M/S.RAYMOND LIMITED. 3 ' 2 , *$.:# A #1. ' 2 , *$.:# A #1. ' 2 , *$.:# A #1. ' 2 , *$.:# A #1./ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &' / THE APPELLANT 2. *+&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. B () / THE CIT, THANE. 4. B / CIT(A) 6, MUMBAI. 5. #E@ *$.$) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. @ F / GUARD FILE. ' 2) ' 2) ' 2) ' 2) / BY ORDER, +#. *$. //TRUE COPY// 7 7 7 7/ // /< ; < ; < ; < ; ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI