IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 349/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT            ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through : Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD    ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through : Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
     18.05.2012 
 . 
 . 
 1. This appeal filed by the Revenue pertains to the assessment year 2005-06.  The issue raised relates to disallowance under Section 14A.  It 
 is noticed that the tribunal has already passed an order of remand after 
 observing that Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (?Rules? for short) 
 is not applicable to the assessment year in question and is prospective 
 in nature.  This Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Limited v. 
 Commissioner of Income Tax [2012] 247 CTR (Delhi) 162 has held that Rule 
 8D of the Rules is not retrospective but only prospective and will apply 
 only from the assessment year 2009-10. 
 . 
 2. Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee states that he has no 
 objection,  in  case,  the  Assessing  Officer  applies the ratio of the 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 349/2012                 page 1 
 of 2 
 . 
 decision in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra).  This statement is 
 taken on record.  The Assessing Officer will decide the question of 
 disallowance and will apply the ratio of the aforesaid decision.  The 
 assessee will be given an opportunity before any decision is taken. 
 . 
 3. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 MAY 18, 2012 
 . 
 AK 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 349/2012                 page 2 
 of 2 
 . 
 $ 21 
 .