CIT vs. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

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 .