CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

284 ITR 619High Court2006#968 most cited

What is CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. authority for?

An assessee may manage tax affairs to attract lower tax as permitted by law, and a genuine sale and leaseback transaction that provides substantial benefit is not a colourable device for tax avoidance.

111

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. · George Williamson Assam · tax planning · tax avoidance · colourable device · sale and leaseback · genuine transaction · lesser tax · business transaction genuineness

Issues it is cited on

specified fundsection 35abbsection 35ddwaiver of loanclarificatory amendmentazadi bachao andolansection 40a(ia)short deduction of taxsection 43b(b)retrospective amendmentsection 80ia(4)section 194h

Judgments citing CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd.

M.W.S. & Co., Bhadohi vs. Dy. C.I.T., Range - 1, Varanasi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 24/VNS/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi19 Apr 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:— M.W.S. & Co. 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 619 dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of section 43B of the Act by virtu…

Neeraj Purohit, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 81/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…raoka Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 408 (Kar.) 7. BS Patel (2010) 326 ITR 457 (M.P.) 8. Bihar State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 386 (Patna H.C.) 9. Sagun Foundry Private Limited (2017) 145 DTR 0265 (All) 10. George Williamson (Assam) Limited (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Assam) 11. Lakhani Rummber Udyog (2009) 312 ITR 0014. 9. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the memorandum in the Finance Bill, 2021. 10. The ld. CIT(A) finally held that th…

Kailash Hospital & Meternity, Uttarpradesh vs. Ward 1(1)(3), Uttarpardesh

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 335/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Narang Scientific Works, C-255 vs. Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 326/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Mohan Services, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 321/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Surender Gahlot, Haryana vs. Ward 4(3), Haryana

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 287/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Jaman Lal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1679/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Manful Solutions, Delhi vs. Ward 54(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 94/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Ravi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Dsd and Matwar Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Ward-7(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 69/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Dsd and Matwar Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Ward-7(4), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 68/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Flourtech Engineers P Ltd, Faridabad vs. Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 67/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Faariha Tyagi, Haryana vs. Ward 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 51/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Rajesh Kumar, Faridabad vs. Ward 2(2), Faridabad

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 41/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhva, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 30/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Connect International Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 29/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Multi Max Engineering Work Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle 17(2), Delhi

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: PendingITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…e Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

M/S Balaji Aluminium Alloys Private Limited, Faridabad vs. DCIT CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the disallowance confirmed by the Appeal Centre is deleted

ITA 1190/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…

Amit Singh, Bhiwadi (Alwar) vs. DCIT, CPC- Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 284/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 DCIT, cuke Amit Singh M/s Amit Travels, A-13 Bhagat Singh Vs. CPC, Bangalore. Colony, Bhiwadi, Tizara, Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: CAWPS 4777 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.) jktLo dh…

Amba Tech Engineering, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rahish Mohammed (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 234BSection 36(1)(va)

…Y CEMENT LTD. 10. SC ORDER: July 4, 2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPN. LTD 11. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA: [2009] 313 ITR (St.) 1: March 7, 2007 CIT VERSUS VINAY CEMENT LTD. 12. GAUHATI HIGH COURT: [2006] 284 ITR 619: June 26, 2006 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LIMITED. 13. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT: December 21, 2016 SAGUN FOUNDRY PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR 14.PATNA HIGH COURT: [2017] 393 ITR 386 March 16, 2016 M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATIONLTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DY COMMISSIO…

Medopharmprivate Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.54/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Medopharm Private Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of 25, Puliyur 2Nd Main Road, Trustpuram, Vs. Income Tax, Cpc, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. Bengaluru 560 500. [Pan:Aadcm9459R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 15.12.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22.10.2018 Admitting Nil Income. The Cpc, Bengaluru Has Completed The Assessment Under 2

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…he Supreme Court by a speaking order, the submission of the learned counsel for the Revenue has to be rejected at the very threshold. The reason for the same is as follows:- 9. The Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd: (2006) 284 ITR 619 (Gauhati) dealt with the very same issue. In the said judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court noted a contrary view taken by the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd: (2000) 242 ITR 114. After noting the said judgment the fact that the amendments had been made to the provisions of Section 43B of the Ac…