JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals with respect to different assessment years but in case of very assessee, both these appeals are decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.01.2016 passed in ITA No. 1283/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2002-03, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,25,20,176/- made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding the Rule 8D does not apply to Assessment Year preceding to A.Y. 2008-09?" 2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 20.01.2016 passed in ITA No. 1284/AHD/2012 for A.Y. 2005-06, by which, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal with the following proposed question of law. "A. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,50,85,863/- made by the AO u/s. 14A of the Act? B. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in holding the Rule 8D does not apply to Assessment Year preceding to A.Y. 2008-09?" 3. We have heard Shri Manish Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue and Shri JP Shah, learned counsel for the assessee. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the proposed questions of law, the short question which is posed for the consideration of this Court is whether the Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules shall be applicable retrospectively or shall be applicable from A.Y. 2008-09. It is not in dispute that now following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. It is not in dispute that now following the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT reported in (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom), the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Torrent Power Limited reported in (2014) 363 ITR 474 (Guj) has held that provision of Rule 8D shall be applicable prospectively and shall not be applicable with respect to earlier assessment years. In view of above concluded question, it cannot be said the learned Tribunal has committed any error. The proposed questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of assessee. No substantial questions of law arise as sought to be contended. Hence, both these appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.