Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by the fourth respondent that the ceiling was only Rs.75,000/- under Section 80DD of the said Act was not correct for the particular period. The same has been enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- for the relevant period. Therefore, the petitioner shall entitle to get back more amount of salary. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks some interpretation of the relevant Section of the Income Tax rule made thereunder.

6.Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

7.At the outset, this Court feels that such an interpretation on the provisions of Income Tax made thereunder is not necessary at this juncture for the facts or issue in this Writ Petition. Moreover, as per the impugned order dated 12.03.2010, the fourth respondent only directed the petitioner to produce the relevant documents in support of his contention that enhancement up to Rs.1,00,000 under Section 80DD of the said Act, was more for the relevant period. If at all the petitioner is having relevant documents to substantiate his contention that he would be entitled for the deduction upto Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 80DD of the said Act, it is open to the petitioner to produce the same, instead, the petitioner has been fighting with the authorities i.e., the respondent herein challenging the order dated 12.03.2010.