IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
.
.
.
ITA 1240/2011
.
.
.
CIT ..... Appellant
.
Through: Mr. Kiran Babu, Sr. Standing Counsel
.
versus
.
.
.
SUNSTAR OVERSEAS LTD ..... Respondent
.
Through: None
.
CORAM:
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR
.
.
.
O R D E R
.
29.11.2011
.
.
.
We are not inclined to issue notice on this appeal as the issue is
already covered against the Revenue by a decision of this Court dated
18th November, 2011 in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT, New
Delhi in ITA No.687/2009, inter alia holding that Rule 8D is not
retrospective. However, in the said decision it has been directed that
the expenses both direct and indirect relating to the exempt income
should be computed and disallowed. In the present case, the Tribunal has
directed as under:-
.
?Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made before us, we
think it fit to restore the matter to the file of the AO to recompute the
disallowance on the basis of the decision in the case of Godrej and Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). It may be emphasized that Rule 8D is not
applicable to the proceedings of this year. It may also be mentioned
that in case any other decision of the High Court including Hon?ble Delhi
High Court is received before passing the order of the AO, the same shall
also be taken into account by him. In other words, this ground shall be
adjudicated again as per law after hearing the assessee. Thus, this
ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.?
.
.
.
The Assessing Officer while implementing the directions issued by
the Tribunal shall keep the decision of the Delhi High Court in mind.
Liberty is granted to the parties to file an application in this appeal,
if there is any difficulty in implementation.
.
The appeal is disposed of.
.
.
.
.
.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
.
.
.
.
.
R.V.EASWAR, J
.
NOVEMBER 29, 2011
.
mm
.
.
.
56
.