In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 v. M/S Shree Rani Sati Investment, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Issue: The appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial question of law. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions for quantification of disallowance as contained in sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 14A of th...
Decision: Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1344 OF 2007
The Commissioner of Income Tax-7 ..Appellant
vs.
M/s Shree Rani Sati Investment
and finance Ltd. ..Respondent
Mr.P,.S.Sahadevan for appellant.
None for respondent.
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
21stJuly 2008
21st
P.C.
P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
The appellant is seeking to raise the following
substantial question of law.
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in law in
holding that the provisions for quantification of
disallowance as contained in sub-section (2) and
(3) of Section 14A of the IT Act 1961 are
procedural in nature and, therefore, apply to all
pending matters.
2. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal. From
the perusal of the reasoning stated in paragraphs 6 to 9
of the said judgment, it is explicitly clear that the
Assessing Officer has no discretion and he has to allow
the expenses under sec.14A, whether incurred directly or
indirectly. In view of the above, the Tribunal has
finally remanded back the matter for fresh assessment and
even the representative of the assessee agreed for fresh
consideration before the Assessing Officer. In view
thereof, there is no question of law involved in the above
appeal as the matter is only remitted back to the
Assessing Officer. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(S.J
(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
(S.J
KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.