TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act r.w Rule 8D of the Rules – Held that:- The rules are inserted subsequently and applied prospectively – Relying upon Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Anr. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - CIT(A) fell in to error in assuming the jurisdiction of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 1962 for the AY – thus, the enhancement has to go and therefore, the assessee wins on this issue – matter remitted back to the AO for proper adjudication – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 160/PN/10 - - - Dated:- 31-5-2011 - Shri I. C. Sudhir, JM And Shri D. Karunakara Rao, AM,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Mukesh Dubey, CIT DR ORDER Per D. Karunakara Rao, AM. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice to the appellant as required u/s.251(2). The directions are bad in law on either account. 2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the assessee mentioned that there are a couple of issues for adjudication before us. The first issue relates to the correct head of income for taxing profit on sales of units of mutual funds. In this regard, the learned counsel for the assessee took our attention to para 22 and 24 of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee s own case for the AYs 2004-05 and 2005- 06, which is placed at the paper book and mentioned that under the circumstances of the identical facts, the Tribunal already decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the profits/gains of sale of the shares constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) is reversed. Accordingly, relevant grounds of the assessee of this appeal are allowed. 5. Second issue relates to applicability of Rule 8D read with section 14A of the Act to the facts of the case. The counsel mentioned that the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the disallowance quantitatively by erroneously applying the provisions of Rule 8D for the A.Y. 2006-07. These rules are inserted subsequently and they apply prospectively only and relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg.Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Anr. (2010) 234 CTR (Bom)1. Ld counsel mentioned that it is now binding on the Tribunal to apply the said Rule 8D only prospectively. If applied so, the enhancement made by the CIT(A) shall ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
