2007 (11) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d "profits" in the proviso to Section 80 HHC (3). It is true that vide 2005 Amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word "loss" in the new proviso. We express no opinion on the scope of the said amendment of 2005. Suffice it to state that in this particular case when the Order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act two view....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For example, when the Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the view taken ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on the day when the Commissioner passed the above order.   Moreover the mechanics of the Section have become so complicated over the years that two views were inherently possible.   Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective will not attract the provision of Section 263 particularly when as stated abo....