IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 84/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 LIQUID INVESTMENT and TRADING CO LTD  ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through Mr. Somnath Shukla, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
      14.02.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 1. The assessment year in question is 2005-06.  Income Tax Appellate 
 Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) by its order dated 30.3.2011 has passed an 
 order of remit. 
 . 
 2. We feel that the order of remit is justified in the present case 
 because the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order dated 5.12.2007, 
 has not reflected and proceeded after ascertaining true and correct 
 facts.  There is a factual dispute as to whether the assessee was charged 
 interest @ 10.25% p.a. or 13% p.a. by HDFC Ltd.  The Assessing Officer, 
 in the assessment order, had recorded that the assessee had taken loan of 
 Rs.23 crores on which interest was payable @ 13% per annum.  However, the 
 CIT (Appeals) has observed that interest @ 10.25% per annum was payable 
 to HDFC Ltd. by the assessee.  In the remand report, an ambiguous 
 statement was made by the Assessing Officer.  The Assessing Officer has 
 been asked to verify the effective rate of interest in the absence of 
 details.  This is necessary as the assessee has given loan of Rs.14.80 
 crores @ 10.75% to a group concern. 
 . 
 3. With regard to the balance amount, there was an investment of 
 Rs.8.2 crores in mutual funds.  However, the tribunal has noticed that 
 the units of the mutual funds were redeemed and the realisation was taxed 
 as short term capital gains.  However, the Assessing Officer had referred 
 and treated the same as tax free dividend income.   There was lack of 
 details and the particulars were not available and therefore it was 
 . 
 difficult to consider, examine and decide about disallowance under Section 14A of the Act.  Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp 
 Investment Ltd. vs. CIT decided on 18.11.2011 has held that Rule 8D of 
 the Income Tax Rules, 1962 
 . 
 is   not  retrospective.    Moreover,  in   the  present   case   the 
 . 
 Assessing Officer had not invoked Rule 8D.  Remit was therefore directed 
 by the tribunal. 
 . 
 4. We see no reason to entertain this appeal under Section 260A.  The 
 appeal is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J 
 . 
 FEBRUARY 14, 2012 
 . 
 vld 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 41 
 . 
 . 
 .