Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC for the finished products manufactured at Unit No. III at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, was initially allowed but later doubted by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the assessment year 2014-15 onwards, citing concerns about the available machinery and electricity consumption not supporting the claimed quantum of production. The Tribunal, in its order dated 02.06.2020, factually verified the issue and concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC for Unit III. For the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, the disallowances were confirmed as the Tribunal's decision was not available before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). However, for the assessment year 2010-11, the FAA not only held the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to be invalid due to a mere change of opinion but also decided the issue on merits following the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15. The facts across all assessment years were identical, and the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 covered the issue for the assessment year 2010-11 as well. Ultimately, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC.
The assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IC for the finished products manufactured at Unit No. III at Paonta Sahib, Himachal Pradesh, was initially allowed but later doubted by the Assessing Officer (AO) from the assessment year 2014-15 onwards, citing concerns about the available machinery and electricity consumption not supporting the claimed quantum of production. The Tribunal, in its order dated 02.06.2020, factually verified the issue and concluded that the assessee is entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC for Unit III. For the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, the disallowances were confirmed as the Tribunal's decision was not available before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). However, for the assessment year 2010-11, the FAA not only held the reopening of assessment u/s 147 to be invalid due to a mere change of opinion but also decided the issue on merits following the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15. The facts across all assessment years were identical, and the Tribunal's decision for the assessment year 2014-15 covered the issue for the assessment year 2010-11 as well. Ultimately, the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction u/s 80IC.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.