TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....holding the CIT(A)'s deletion of 2.56 Cr. by invoking the provision of section 14A r/2 Rule 8D?" 2.Both the learned counsels fairly submitted that the said issue is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. [(2018) 401 ITR 0445] and Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [(2017) 394 ITR 0449], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be applied retrospectively. The said Rules were introduced and brought on the Statute Book with effect from 24.03.2008 and the present assessment year involved in the present A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r opinion as expressed above, dismissal of the appeal by the Bombay High Court is fully sustainable. As held above, the Rule 8D is prospective in operation and could not have been applied to any assessment year prior to Assessment Year 2008-09." (ii) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and another [(2017) 394 ITR 0449] "37. We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....64 crores as on 31.3.2002) remains unproved by any material whatsoever. While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case. In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1992) 193 ITR (SC) 321 [At Page 329]. "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the foll....