https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64164 The appeal was initially time-barred but the delay was condoned. The dispute centered on the CIT(A) upholding the ITO's order under sections 147(b) and 144, leading to reassessment issues regarding investment and export market development allowances. The ITO justified the reassessment due to a retrospective amendment of s. 80J, resulting in the withdrawal of deductions. The Tribunal disagreed with the ITO's actions, ruling in favor of the assessee's entitlement to the allowances based on previous approvals. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment under s. 147(b) and confirmed the ITO's jurisdiction in reassessment proceedings, ultimately partially allowing the appeal. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:07:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64164 The appeal was initially time-barred but the delay was condoned. The dispute centered on the CIT(A) upholding the ITO's order under sections 147(b) and 144, leading to reassessment issues regarding investment and export market development allowances. The ITO justified the reassessment due to a retrospective amendment of s. 80J, resulting in the withdrawal of deductions. The Tribunal disagreed with the ITO's actions, ruling in favor of the assessee's entitlement to the allowances based on previous approvals. The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment under s. 147(b) and confirmed the ITO's jurisdiction in reassessment proceedings, ultimately partially allowing the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64164