https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187247 Where conflicting High Court views existed on the retrospective operation of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), and no jurisdictional precedent was available, the Tribunal applied the construction favourable to the assessee. It also held that disallowance of interest paid to non-banking finance companies could not be confirmed without verifying whether the recipients had included the receipts in their taxable income, particularly where Form No. 26A under Rule 31ACB was furnished. The matter was restored for limited factual verification, and the disallowance was to be deleted if the Form No. 26A requirements were satisfied. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 11:43:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187247 Where conflicting High Court views existed on the retrospective operation of the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), and no jurisdictional precedent was available, the Tribunal applied the construction favourable to the assessee. It also held that disallowance of interest paid to non-banking finance companies could not be confirmed without verifying whether the recipients had included the receipts in their taxable income, particularly where Form No. 26A under Rule 31ACB was furnished. The matter was restored for limited factual verification, and the disallowance was to be deleted if the Form No. 26A requirements were satisfied. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187247