1984 (10) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... C. 2. The assessee is an individual and the appeal relates to the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee was in the employment of two concerns, Vijay Flexible Containers (P.) Ltd. and Rathika (P.) Ltd. and the salary from these two concerns was Rs. 39,000 and Rs. 25,379, respectively. It was claimed before the ITO that the maximum deduction, as laid down in section 16(i) of the Income-tax Act, 19 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore the Tribunal, Bombay Bench 'A', the Bench was of the view that the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Shrenikbhai Kasturbhai [1983] 5 ITD 242 (Ahd.)(TM) requires reconsideration. A Special Bench was, therefore, constituted for a hearing on this issue and that is how the appeal has come up for consideration before us. 4. The assessee's learned counsel, Shri Patel, submitted to us t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e circumstances, the ITO was justified in allowing the standard deduction of Rs. 3,500 only and the AAC wrongly allowed a further standard deduction of Rs. 3,500. 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. It is by now settled law that where a provision of an Act is retrospectively amended by the appropriate legislative authority, all pending assessment or appeal proceedings have to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X