<?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>1996 (1) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17736</link>
    <description>The amended section 43B was treated as retrospectively applicable to assessment year 1985-86, following authority that the amendment operated beyond its stated commencement date. The Court also found that the proposed reference under section 256(2) did not raise a fresh referable question of law because the section 43B issue and the subsidy point had already been settled by binding precedent. On that basis, reference was declined and no further answer was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:59:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56736" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17736</link>
      <description>The amended section 43B was treated as retrospectively applicable to assessment year 1985-86, following authority that the amendment operated beyond its stated commencement date. The Court also found that the proposed reference under section 256(2) did not raise a fresh referable question of law because the section 43B issue and the subsidy point had already been settled by binding precedent. On that basis, reference was declined and no further answer was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>