https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340233 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the assessing officer acted beyond statutory competence by disallowing privilege fee while also questioning the validity of the State levy, a matter outside his authority. The Karnataka HC held that the writ petitions were maintainable. On deduction, privilege fee paid under the statutory framework governing the liquor trade was an expenditure incurred to discharge a legal obligation, and the amendment inserting section 40(a)(iib) operated prospectively from 1.4.2014. It could not be applied to earlier assessment years, so the disallowance for those years was unlawful and the appeals failed. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2017 10:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340233 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the assessing officer acted beyond statutory competence by disallowing privilege fee while also questioning the validity of the State levy, a matter outside his authority. The Karnataka HC held that the writ petitions were maintainable. On deduction, privilege fee paid under the statutory framework governing the liquor trade was an expenditure incurred to discharge a legal obligation, and the amendment inserting section 40(a)(iib) operated prospectively from 1.4.2014. It could not be applied to earlier assessment years, so the disallowance for those years was unlawful and the appeals failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340233