Where provision for debts was made in earlier years and then added back to computation of income , any claim of expenditure in the subsequent year is allowable as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) because the law does not require that debit towards write off be made in the year of deduction [Rallis India 190 taxman 1 (Bom)]

Reassessment with in four years from the end of relevant assessment year can also not be made for mere change of opinion in the absence of tangible material on the basis of which assessment could have been made [Rallis India 190 taxman 1 (Bom)]Para 12

Gujrat CM Relief Fund gave notice of accumulation u/s 11(2) in F.10 where in general objects of the trust were mentioned . Lower authorities disallowed the claimed of the assessee saying that notice has to be specific following SC in S.RM.M.CT.M. Tiruppani Trust(1998) 230 ITR 636 at p.640 (SC) However Ahemdabad Tribunal in GUJARAT CHIEF MINISTER RELIEF FUND (2015) 45 CCH 0205 04-11-2015, following Delhi High Court in Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust (2005) 272 ITR 379 (Del) held that where similar notice has been accepted by the department in preceeding and succeeding year, it can not challenge the notice for the year under consideration on the ground of being not specific. ITAT in Para 13 also mentioned that enquiry of AO was not aimed whether time limit for notice issued for earlier years was adhered.

Retrospective Amendment of law not operative on date of order u/s 263 or issue of notice u/s 148

ž  If retrospective amendment of law was not enforceable on the day, CIT exercised its powers u/s 263, order u/s 263 is bad in law[Supreme Court in Max India [295 ITR 282]]. In this case amendment in section 80HHC was brought retrospectively on the definition of profit in FA 2005 while order u/s 263 was passed 5-03-1997

ž  Similarly notice u/s 148 can also not be issued , held by Bombay HC in Rallis India [Para 18] 190 taxman 1. In this case notice u/s 148 was issued on 16-07-2008 and Finance Act 2009 amended the law on S.115JB requiring increase in book profits by provision on diminution in  value of assets w.e.f. 1-4-2001.[Consequent to SC Order in HCL Comet  292 ITR 299 that  provision for bad debts can not be equated with  amount set aside for meeting liabilities]