IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.567 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.11.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga,Standing Counsel for the revenue. ----- ORDER: The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench ‘B’ passed in I.T.A. No.734/Chandi/2007 dated 26.2.2008 for the assessment year 2002- 03, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the fact and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in questioning the applicability of section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further whether the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in upholding the decision of Ld. CIT(A) by directing the AO to calculate the income from procurement/ other activities on the basis of turnover/receipts when as per the amended provisions of 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the AO was supposed to determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form a part of the total income ITA. No.567 of 2008 in accordance with the method to be laid down by the CBDT.” The assessee claimed deduction of expenses which were disallowed under Section 14-A of the Act to the extent attributable to exempted income. The CIT (Appeal) accepted the claim of the assessee holding that the expenses should be apportioned in the ratio of gross turnover. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the revenue and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 24.12.2007 in respect of previous years, taking a view that Section 14A of the Act could not be invoked for assessment years prior to 2001. Since the matter has been remanded back to the Assessing Officer, at this stage, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 21, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2