Case: Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai Vs. M/s. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. Through its Manager

4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of Bombay High Court dated 12.09.2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 947 of 2011 by which judgment the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax following an earlier judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 12.08.2010 in the case of Godrej Boyce and Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.) . The assessment year in issue isThe assessee (respondent in appeal) filed his return of income on 01.12.2003 declaring a loss of Rs.69,92,67,527/. A notice under Section 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide its order dated 27.03.2006 held that during the year under consideration, the assessee company was in receipt of both taxable and nontaxable dividend income. Accordingly, the dividend on investment exempt under Section 10(23G) was considered by the A.O. for the purpose of disallowance U/S.14A. Hence, proportionate interest relating to investment on which exemption u/s.10(23G) is available as per the working amounting to Rs.26 crores was disallowed U/S.14A r.w.s. 10(23G) of the I.T. Act.5. The assessee filed an appeal, which was partly allowed by order dated 05.03.2009. The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT allowed theappeal relying on the Bombay Highjudgment in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumabi & Another., reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81(Bom.) . The ITAT held that Rule 8D is only prospective and in the year under consideration Rule 8D was not applicable. ITAT set aside the order of CIT(A) and restored the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication without invoking the provisions of Rule 8D. Against the order of ITAT, the revenue filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court following its earlier judgment of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (supra) dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner of Income Tax aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.

Reasoning:
48. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation for interpreting retrospectivity of a fiscal statute and looking into the nature and purpose of subsection (2) and subsection (3) of Section 14A as well as purpose and intent of Rule 8D coupled with the explanatory notes in the Finance Bill, 2006 and the departmental understanding as reflected by Circular dated 28.12.2006, we are of the considered opinion that Rule 8D was intended to operate prospectively.49. It is relevant to note that impugned judgment in this appeal relies on earlier judgment of Bombay High Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Another, (2017) 7 SCC 421 , where the Division Bench of the Bombay High court after elaborately considering the principles to determine the prospectivity or retrospectivity of the amendment has concluded that Rule 8D is prospective in nature. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High court dated 12.08.2010 an appeal was filed in this court which has been decided by vide its judgment reported in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr. (2017) 7 SCC 421. This Court, while deciding the above appeal repelled the challenge raised by the assessee regarding vires of Section 14A. In para 36 of the judgment, this Court noticed that with regard to retrospectivity of provisions Revenue had filed appeal, hence the said question was not gone into the aforesaid appeal. In the above case, this Court specifically left the question of retrospectivity to be decided in other appeals filed by the Revenue. We thus have proceeded to decide the question of retrospectivity of Rule 8D in these appeals.50. In view of our 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 200809.