On appeal against the order of the High Court holding that the Tribunal, after setting aside the order under section 263 of the Act with reference to section 13(8) of the Act, could not thereafter have proceeded to examine the matter on the merits as the merits of the matter were not the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal, and quashed the order of the Tribunal and the direction of the Director (E) to the Assessing Officer to disallow the deduction under section 80-IB(10). On SLP the Court held that the observations made by the High Court, the consequences of the retrospective amendment in section 13(8) may not be considered by the Assessing Officer. It shall be open for the Assessing Officer to consider all the pleas of the assessee including the consequences of the retrospective amendment in accordance with law irrespective of the observations made by the High Court or the Tribunal. (AY.2009-10)
India Heritage Foundation v. DIT (E) (2022)449 ITR 154 / 219 DTR 1/ 329 CTR 225 (SC) Editorial: DIT(E) v. India Heritage Foundation (2020) 428 ITR 299 (Karn)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-High Court remanded the matter to Assessing Officer for consideration of claim-On SLP court held that the Assessing Officer to consider all pleas of assessee including consequences of retrospective amendment irrespective of observations of High Court or Tribunal. [S. 11, 12AA, 13(8), 80IB(10), 254(1)]