<?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>1997 (4) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17740</link>
    <description>Section 43B of the Income-tax Act was construed together with its first proviso and Explanation 2 to give effect to the legislative intent. The proviso was treated as supplying an obvious omission and as curbing the undue width and unintended hardship that would otherwise arise from section 43B. On that construction, the first proviso was held to operate retrospectively, and the references were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:07:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (4) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17740</link>
      <description>Section 43B of the Income-tax Act was construed together with its first proviso and Explanation 2 to give effect to the legislative intent. The proviso was treated as supplying an obvious omission and as curbing the undue width and unintended hardship that would otherwise arise from section 43B. On that construction, the first proviso was held to operate retrospectively, and the references were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>