TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pex Court in S.A. Builders (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ) to examine the case of the respondent assessee before it to determine whether the expenditure was on account of commercial expediency and on facts held it to be so. This on account of undisputed position that the debentures were issued to a sister concern in the same line of business having business connection with each other. Disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D - Held that:- The issue stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). In the above case, this Court has held that disallowance under Section 14A of the Act on application of Rule 8D of the Rules would only apply from A.Y. 2008-09, prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lying on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (328 ITR 81) which has been challenged by the revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court? 3. Regarding Question (i) : (a) In the previous year relevant to A.Y. 200708, the respondent assessee had issued 1,32,50,000 Zero Coupon Secured optionally convertible redeemable debentures (debentures) of the face value of ₹ 1,000/each at a discount of ₹ 400/per debenture. These debentures were redeemable in 2011 at a face value of ₹ 1,000/each. The difference of ₹ 400/was amortised by the assessee over this entire period i.e. from date of issue to date of redemption. During the subject assessment year, the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures was for the business / commercial expediency and allowable as an expenditure. The impugned order also holds that investment is one of its objects, therefore, a part of its business activity. (c) The grievance of the Revenue before us is that the decision of the Apex Court in S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) calls for reconsideration as noted by the Apex Court in its order dated 30th April, 2012 while admitting Special Leave Petition in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd (unreported copy tendered across the bar). Therefore, according to the Revenue the reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in S.A. Builders (supra) is not justified. Thus, the appeal requires admission. (d) It is not disputed before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same being procedural would apply retrospectively. The impugned order places reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 328, ITR 81 to hold that as the subject assessment year is A.Y. 200708, Rule 8D of the Rules could not be invoked. In the above view, the impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent assessee. It may be noted that the impugned order holds that on merits, Section 14A of the Act will not apply. However, no appeal on this aspect has been filed by the Revenue. (b) Ms. Bharucha, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly states that the issue stands concluded against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in Godrej Boyce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
