IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
 . 
   ITA 87/2012  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CIT             ..... Appellant 
 . 
 Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Adv. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 JINDAL PHOTO LTD         ..... Respondent 
 . 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 
 . 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR 
 . 
 O R D E R 
 . 
              15.02.2012 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 Whether insurance claim paid should be included for computing 
 deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stands concluded 
 and decided against the Revenue vide decision dated 19th August, 2009 in 
 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Spotking India Ltd. (2010) 324 ITR 283 
 (Del.). 
 . 
 Learned counsel for the Revenue during the course of arguments had 
 submitted that the CIT (Appeals) has recorded a finding that insurance 
 claim was in respect of stock-in-trade.  In case the insurance claim was 
 . 
 in respect of raw-material, the decision in the case of Spotking India Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied. This proposition is prima facie correct, 
 but it is not the contention of the Revenue that the insurance claim paid 
 was for loss of raw material.  We find that before the Assessing Officer, 
 the assessee had clearly and categorically stated that the insurance 
 claim was on account of loss of goods in transit and goods in question 
 were goods manufactured by the eligible undertaking.  The order passed by 
 the CIT (Appeals) is, in fact, presumptuous and without giving any 
 reasons or factual background, he has stated that it could be safely 
 concluded that the loss was relating to stock-in-trade as it was caused 
 during transit. Thus the finding of the CIT (Appeals) is not correct. 
 Moreover, he did not record that the material/goods lost were raw 
 material or unfinished goods.  The tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order 
 has specifically gone into the said aspect and referred to the query 
 raised by the Assessing Officer and the written submission submitted by 
 the assessee.  We may note that the Assessing Officer had not held that 
 the insurance claim was in respect of raw-material. 
 . 
 Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the Punjab and 
 Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Khemka 
 Container (P.) Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 559 has taken a different view.  We 
 are bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court.  We do not 
 see any reason to refer the matter to a larger Bench. 
 . 
 With regard to the disallowance under Section 14A, the assessee had 
 earned dividend income of Rs. 17,97,010/-. It was claimed to be exempt 
 under Section 10 of the Act. The assessee had itself disallowed an amount 
 of Rs.1,73,038/-.   The break-up of the said amount has been given in the 
 order passed by the CIT (Appeals).  The same is as follows:- 
 . 
 ?i) Personnel Expenses  Rs. 17,733/- 
 . 
 ii) Administrative Expenses  Rs. 1,08,829/- 
 . 
 iii) Selling and Distribution Expenses 
 . 
 Rs.   46,476/- 
 . 
 Total   Rs. 1,73,038/- 
 . 
 It is apparent that the assessee while disallowing Rs.1,73,038/- 
 has included the indirect expenses.  We may note that the Assessing 
 Officer in the assessment order has not gone into the direct and indirect 
 expenses or commented about the deduction made suo motu by the assessee. 
 The Assessing Officer applied Rule 8D, which has been inserted with 
 effect from 24th March, 2008.   It has been held by this Court in the 
 case of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI, 
 ITA No.687/2009 that the aforesaid amendment is not retrospective and 
 does not apply to the assessment year 2007-08. 
 . 
 In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present 
 appeal and the same is dismissed. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 SANJIV KHANNA, J. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 R.V.EASWAR, J. 
 . 
 FEBRUARY 15, 2012 
 . 
 NA 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 $ 4 
 .