https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3399 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the exclusion of Sikandrabad Block from backward areas for Section 80HH benefits. It upheld the validity of Notification S.O. 165 dated 19.12.1986 and the subsequent amendment, finding no discrimination or violation of constitutional provisions. The court rejected the application of promissory estoppel, emphasizing the government's authority to determine backward areas and the lack of estoppel against the statute. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80HH for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 was denied. en-us Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3399 The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the exclusion of Sikandrabad Block from backward areas for Section 80HH benefits. It upheld the validity of Notification S.O. 165 dated 19.12.1986 and the subsequent amendment, finding no discrimination or violation of constitutional provisions. The court rejected the application of promissory estoppel, emphasizing the government's authority to determine backward areas and the lack of estoppel against the statute. Consequently, the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80HH for the years 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 was denied. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3399