Omission of a statutory provision can extinguish pending proceedings; factual remand on disallowance was left intact.

An unqualified omission of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, without a saving clause, was held to extinguish pending proceedings founded solely on that provision, applying the principle that omitted law is treated as removed from the statute book and section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not preserve such proceedings. The transfer pricing reference and consequential orders were therefore unsustainable. The Tribunal's remand of the section 14A disallowance was left undisturbed because it turned on factual determination and did not warrant appellate interference. The appeals accordingly failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2017 rendered pending transfer pricing proceedings without jurisdiction and invalid; (ii) whether the Tribunal's remand of the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 called for interference.

Issue (i): whether the omission of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01.04.2017 rendered pending transfer pricing proceedings without jurisdiction and invalid.

Analysis: The omission of a statutory provision, in the absence of a saving clause, operates to remove the provision from the statute book as if it had never existed. Applying this principle and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court held that once clause (i) of section 92BA stood omitted, pending proceedings based solely on that clause could not survive. The transfer pricing reference and the consequential orders made on that footing were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal's remand of the disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 called for interference.

Analysis: The Tribunal had remitted the disallowance issue for factual determination by the Assessing Officer. Since the matter turned on factual exercise and did not present a question warranting interference in the appeal, the Court declined to disturb that part of the order.

Conclusion: The remand was upheld and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed in full.

Ratio Decidendi: An unqualified omission of a statutory provision, without a saving clause preserving pending proceedings, extinguishes proceedings founded exclusively on that provision; a remand on a fact-based issue will not ordinarily give rise to a substantial question of law.

---