https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12470 The court dismissed the petitioner's application, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to decide on the deduction issue. The Commissioner's refusal to grant an extension of time for repatriation was upheld, citing limitations imposed by the Finance Act, 1999. The court noted the petitioner's suppression of material facts and subsequent filing of documents, affecting the proceedings. It held that post-amendment, the Commissioner lacked authority to address the matter, which should have been handled by specific authorities. Filing parallel proceedings before the High Court while the matter was pending before the Appellate Tribunal was deemed impermissible, leading to the application's dismissal. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12470 The court dismissed the petitioner's application, finding that the Assessing Officer (AO) had jurisdiction under section 80HHC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to decide on the deduction issue. The Commissioner's refusal to grant an extension of time for repatriation was upheld, citing limitations imposed by the Finance Act, 1999. The court noted the petitioner's suppression of material facts and subsequent filing of documents, affecting the proceedings. It held that post-amendment, the Commissioner lacked authority to address the matter, which should have been handled by specific authorities. Filing parallel proceedings before the High Court while the matter was pending before the Appellate Tribunal was deemed impermissible, leading to the application's dismissal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12470