9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1721X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied the third proviso which was not in existence at the time of assessment and nor for the next four years, and proceeded to reopen the assessment and disallow certain amounts. The assessee's first appeal was unsuccessful and, therefore, it approached the Tribunal, which has granted relief. This Court is of the opinion that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the AO could not have r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e third proviso to sub- section 3(c)(ii) of Section 80HHC. In the present case, the return of income was processed under Section 143(1) on 12.02.2001 for the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee had claimed ₹ 3,96,90,522/- in terms of the then existing Section 80HHC. Much later, i.e. after coming into force of the Taxation Laws (Amendment Act), 2005 with retrospective effect from 1998 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO could not have reopened the assessment for the year 2000-01 on the basis of the retrospective amendment, when the retrospectivity has been struck down and the amendment having been held to be prospective, i.e. from the assessment year 2005-06, over six years later. If the Revenue felt aggrieved, it could have taken appropriate steps to rectify the order in accordance with law within the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
