Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds 25% Deduction Under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Shri Arun Trehan Versus The Principal C.I. T-II, Chandigarh.</h3> Shri Arun Trehan Versus The Principal C.I. T-II, Chandigarh. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) is defective in law and facts.2. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in holding the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.3. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in canceling the original assessment under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80IC at 25% instead of 100%.5. Whether the Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the assessee could have installed a new unit and claimed 100% exemption under section 80IC instead of going for substantial expansion.Detailed Analysis:1. Defective Order of the Pr. CIT:The assessee contended that the order of the Pr. CIT was defective both in law and facts. However, the tribunal did not find any merit in this claim as the Pr. CIT had followed the due process of law in issuing the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Erroneous and Prejudicial to Revenue:The Pr. CIT held that the assessment framed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The tribunal upheld this view, citing that the AO had allowed the deduction under section 80IC at 100% without properly examining whether the assessee was eligible for such a deduction in the relevant assessment year.3. Cancellation of Original Assessment:The Pr. CIT canceled the original assessment under section 263, which was framed under section 143(3). The tribunal supported this action, noting that the AO had not adequately investigated the eligibility criteria for the deduction under section 80IC, thus justifying the cancellation of the original assessment.4. Restriction of Deduction under Section 80IC:The core issue was whether the assessee was eligible to claim a 100% deduction under section 80IC after having claimed the same for the first five years, based on the substantial expansion of the undertaking. The tribunal referred to the case of Hycron Electronics Vs. ITO, where it was held that the deduction under section 80IC should be 100% for the first five years and 25% thereafter. The tribunal found no distinguishing facts in the present case and thus dismissed the assessee's claim for a 100% deduction.5. Installation of New Unit vs. Substantial Expansion:The assessee argued that nothing prevented it from installing a new unit and claiming a 100% exemption under section 80IC instead of opting for substantial expansion. The tribunal dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the legislative intent and the provisions of section 80IC were clear in allowing a 100% deduction for the first five years and 25% thereafter, regardless of whether a new unit was installed or substantial expansion was undertaken.Conclusion:The tribunal, after considering the detailed submissions and the relevant legal provisions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. It upheld the order of the Pr. CIT, confirming that the assessee was entitled to only a 25% deduction under section 80IC for the relevant assessment year, following the precedent set in the case of Hycron Electronics. The tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of section 80IC should not render any part of the statute redundant and must align with the legislative intent.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found