Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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.