Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 5]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Abhishek Industries Ltd., (Now ... on 28 March, 2019

Bench: Krishna Murari, Arun Palli

ITA-202-2017(O&M)                                                1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                                                   CM-5992-CII-2019 in/and
                                                        ITA-202-2017(O&M)
                                                  Date of decision: 28.03.2019


Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana
                                                                 ... Appellant
                                        Versus

M/s Abhishek Industries Ltd.
                                                               ... Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI,
       CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE

Present:     Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant.
             Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate, with
             Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent.
             ***

KRISHNA MURARI, C.J. (Oral)

This appeal by the revenue raises the following question of law:

"Whether on fact and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in confirming the order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,12,26,829/- made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act to Rs.50,000/- holding that the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable for A.Y. 2006-07 while the A.O. had restored to calculating the disallowance under Section 14A which as on date was the most reasonable and scientific method also approved by the legislature for making such disallowance?."

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 11:51:53 ::: ITA-202-2017(O&M) 2 Parties are not at issue that the question of law regarding the retrospective applicability of Rule 8D to assessment year 2008-06 has been the subject matter of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case tilted Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 253, and the question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee. The question of law raised in this appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment.

The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

( Krishna Murari ) Chief Justice ( Arun Palli ) Judge 28.03.2019 Rajan Whether speaking / reasoned: YES Whether Reportable: NO 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-05-2019 11:51:53 :::