TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Corrects ITAT Error on Tax Relief: Sections 80IB(13) & 80IA(7) Violations</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Nagpur Versus Mrs. Anju Saraf</h3> The High Court held that the ITAT erred in granting relief to the assessee by overlooking mandatory provisions of law under sections 80IB(13), 80IA(7), ... - Admitted on the following 'substantial questions of law': whether the ITAT erred in granting relief while overlooking and 'ignoring the mandatory provisions of law' in section 80IB(13), 80IA(7) and rule 18BBB; whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring provisions requiring maintenance of separate books and filing of audit report for the 'eligible unit' and in granting relief beyond law; whether, where there is trading as well as a claim of certain portion as 'production', the Tribunal was justified in granting 80IB deduction on the total profit; whether an assessee engaged in trading of iron ore (and not in 'mining activity') can be treated as involved in 'production', contrary to the Apex Court in Sesa Goa Ltd.; whether principles of natural justice were violated by not calling for revised audit reports u/s 80IB; whether the unit was correctly held to be an SSI unit contrary to sec. 80IB(3)(ii) read with sec. 80IB 14(g); whether 'additional depreciation' under sec. 32(iia)(B) can be allowed without filing 'Form 3AA' and absent production; whether reliance on 208 ITR 481 (CIT v. N S Arunachalam) was warranted; whether a statutory report in 'Form 3AA' may be accepted in revisionary proceedings under sec. 263; and whether the appellate authorities perversely appreciated evidence warranting interference.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
