<?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>2006 (7) TMI 190 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30531</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the amended law applicable at the time of processing the return, rejecting the argument that the law as it stood on the date of filing should apply. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of applying the law in force during return processing. The judgment also clarified the distinction from a Supreme Court case on additional tax, stating that the levy must not penalize without fault. The appeals were dismissed, with no substantial question of law found, and delay in filing the appeals was not considered due to the dismissal on merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 190 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30531</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on the amended law applicable at the time of processing the return, rejecting the argument that the law as it stood on the date of filing should apply. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of applying the law in force during return processing. The judgment also clarified the distinction from a Supreme Court case on additional tax, stating that the levy must not penalize without fault. The appeals were dismissed, with no substantial question of law found, and delay in filing the appeals was not considered due to the dismissal on merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>