<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (12) TMI 122 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335477</link>
    <description>The article discusses the interaction between section 14A disallowance, assessment under section 115JB, and the credit mechanism under section 115JAA. It notes that treating the section 14A disallowance as irrelevant after accepting book profit for the year was considered erroneous because the disallowance may affect future assessment years through tax credit consequences. It also records that the lower authorities did not decide the assessee&#039;s relevant contentions, including the applicability of Rule 8D. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh adjudication on all issues, with the substantive tax controversy left open for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:47:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 122 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335477</link>
      <description>The article discusses the interaction between section 14A disallowance, assessment under section 115JB, and the credit mechanism under section 115JAA. It notes that treating the section 14A disallowance as irrelevant after accepting book profit for the year was considered erroneous because the disallowance may affect future assessment years through tax credit consequences. It also records that the lower authorities did not decide the assessee&#039;s relevant contentions, including the applicability of Rule 8D. The matter was therefore sent back for fresh adjudication on all issues, with the substantive tax controversy left open for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>