Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreA voluntary organisation established on 6th July 1949, BCAS has presently more than 9,000 members from all over the country. BCAS is a principle-centered and learning-oriented organisation promoting quality service and excellence in the profession of Chartered Accountancy.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn MoreLorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book.
Learn More
CIT vs. Power Finance Corporation Ltd.; 378 ITR 619 (Del):
For the A. Y. 2007-08, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s. 143(3), allowing the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) and u/s. 36(1)(viii). The Commissioner exercised the revisional powers u/s. 263 and held that the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia)(c) should have been computed after allowing deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii). The Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner holding that on the question whether the total income for the purpose of section 36(1)(vii)(c) should be computed after allowing the deduction u/s. 36(1)(viii) there were at least two possible views as reflected in the orders of the Delhi and Chennai Benches of the Tribunal. On appeal by the Revenue, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as under:
“i) I ndependent of the two decisions, the stand of the Revenue as set out in its memorandum of appeal and that of the assessee that both deductions were independent of each other, gave rise to two further possible interpretations.
ii) The view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible one and there was no occasion for the Commissioner to have exercised the jurisdiction u/s. 263.”