:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2008 TAX APPEAL NO.1207 OF 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, ..Appellant Vs. Sayed Hatim Roustam ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Shivsharan for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & :- DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, V.C.DAGA, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The Appellant is seeking to raise the following substantial questions of law in the above. a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in remanding the matter for consideration afresh in view of the amended provisions of Section 80HHC, when the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that in view of the amended provision of Section 80 HHC, the Respondent is not eligible for deduction ? b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in setting aside the order of the CIT(A) without giving any reasons ? 2. We have perused the order dated 23rd August, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, specially the reasons stated in paragraph Nos.6 and 7. It is explicitly clear that the Tribunal had merely remanded back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh, which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. There is no substantial question of law involved in the above. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed. (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) :2: