https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269768 The High Court remanded the disallowance of business loss claimed under section 41(1) due to damaged stock of paddy back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, acknowledging the risk of double taxation. However, the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) was upheld by the Tribunal, despite concerns about a pending retrospective amendment. The High Court did not address the validity of the retrospective amendment and found no perversity in the Tribunal's order, leading to the matter being returned to the Assessing Officer for further review. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:25:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269768 The High Court remanded the disallowance of business loss claimed under section 41(1) due to damaged stock of paddy back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, acknowledging the risk of double taxation. However, the disallowance of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) was upheld by the Tribunal, despite concerns about a pending retrospective amendment. The High Court did not address the validity of the retrospective amendment and found no perversity in the Tribunal's order, leading to the matter being returned to the Assessing Officer for further review. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269768