JUDGEMENTopens in new window

$" IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 15. + ITA 589/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. versus MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD Respondent Through: Mr SimranMehta and Mr PrabhatKalia, Advocates. AND + ITA 590/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-II Appellant Through: Mr Rohit Madan, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Zoheb Hossain, Advocate. versus MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDITS PVT. LTD. Respondent Through: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate with Mr Simran Mehta and Mr Prabhat Kalia, Advocate. ITA 589/2014 & 590/2014 Page I of3 2015:DHC:11369-DB

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 15.09.2015 CM No.14990/2014 in ITA 590/2014 1. For the reasons stated in the appHcation, the delay of 200 days in re-fiHng the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 589/2014 ITA 590/2014 3. These are appeals filed by the Revenue against the order dated 31®^ January, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA No.5527/Del/2010 for Assessment Year ('AY') 2006-07 and against the order dated 29^^ February, 2012 passed by the ITAT in ITA No.l402/Del/2011 for AY 2007-08. 4. The common question that is urged in both appeals by the Revenue is whether Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 is prospective? The said question stands answered against the Revenue and in favour ofthe Assessee ITA 589/2014 & 590/2014 Page 2 of3 2015:DHC:11369-DB

by the decision of this Court inMaxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, (2012) 347ITR 272 (Del). 5. Consequently, no substantial question oflaw arises inthese appeals. 6. The appeals are dismissed. SEPTEMBER 15,2015 MK ITA 589/2014 & 590/2014 S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J Page 3 of3 2015:DHC:11369-DB