Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee's cold storage activity, including letting out the facility to growers for storage of produce, amounted to "preservation" so as to qualify for deduction under section 80IB(11A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the Principal Commissioner could validly revise the assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The assessee was found to be carrying on the business of cold storage, and the mere fact that the facility was rented to growers for storing their produce did not change the character of the activity. The activity was held to fall within the statutory expression "preservation" for purposes of section 80IB(11A). Once the assessee was regarded as engaged in preservation of eligible produce, the assessment allowing the deduction could not be characterised as erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on that ground. The earlier tribunal ruling relied upon by Revenue was held not to be binding on the present issue because the precise question of preservation had not there been examined.
Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to deduction under section 80IB(11A), and the revisionary order under section 263 was set aside.