Mr.Mohd Rafiq, Gulbarga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Gulbarga
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes
ITA 573/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Mohd. Rafiq, Income Tax Officer, Pro: Karnataka Transport Co. Ward - 2 & Acc Contractor, Near Irani Vs. Gulbarga. Building, Accc Main Road, At/Post Wadi, Tq. Chittapur, Dist. Gulbarga – 585 225. Pan : Adspr 0153 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2020 O R D E R
For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a
…ind that this proviso is not applicable in the present case if it is not retrospective because in the present case, Assessment Year involved is 2010-11 but as per the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of PCIT vs. Manoj Kumar Singh, 402 ITR 238, it was held that Section 40(a)(ia) proviso was for benefit of Assessee and when provision had been made in fiscal statute for benefit of Assessee, in absence of any express provision or provisions which by necessary implication gave different impression, such provision which was beneficial to Assessee must be read and given effect to retroactive…
