https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78621 The High Court considered the interpretation of Section 88 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT circular No.3P in a case involving a rebate for deposits in PPF. The Court criticized the authorities for their narrow interpretation, emphasizing that the deposit need not be linked solely to the income of the previous year. Despite the assessee having sufficient taxable income to cover the PPF investment, the rebate was denied due to the source of the deposit. The Court, citing precedents, declined to provide a detailed response as no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, returning the reference unanswered. en-us Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Dec 2010 22:43:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78621 The High Court considered the interpretation of Section 88 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT circular No.3P in a case involving a rebate for deposits in PPF. The Court criticized the authorities for their narrow interpretation, emphasizing that the deposit need not be linked solely to the income of the previous year. Despite the assessee having sufficient taxable income to cover the PPF investment, the rebate was denied due to the source of the deposit. The Court, citing precedents, declined to provide a detailed response as no representation was made on behalf of the assessee, returning the reference unanswered. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78621