https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303376 The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance of amortization of investments under the 'Head to Maturity' category, disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, employees' contribution to Provident Fund, contingent liability relating to employees compensation expenses, capital expenditure on purchase of software, loss on acquisition of land, depreciation on leased assets, deduction under section 80M, and interest under section 234D were all contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order on merit except for grounds considered by the CIT in the revision order under section 263. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2022 10:33:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303376 The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance of amortization of investments under the 'Head to Maturity' category, disallowance under section 14A of the Income-tax Act, employees' contribution to Provident Fund, contingent liability relating to employees compensation expenses, capital expenditure on purchase of software, loss on acquisition of land, depreciation on leased assets, deduction under section 80M, and interest under section 234D were all contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order on merit except for grounds considered by the CIT in the revision order under section 263. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303376