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. 21st 21st 21st July 2008 July 2008 July 2008 P.C. 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 (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)