Satish Yashwant Kulkarni v. UOI (2018) 259 Taxman 489 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Pendency of constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 9A- Matter remanded to CIT(A) to decide on merits. [R. 9A]

During pendency of appeal against assessment order passed under section 143(3), assessee filed a petition challenging constitutional validity of proviso to rule 9A, since assessee’s appeal was pending before Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, interest of justice would be served by not examining presently issue of constitutional validity and legality of proviso to rule 9A. Matter remanded.