Revenue authority mandates using scheme-specific reversal procedures, not revising original entries, for instrument-based trade/customs benefits effec...
Transaction value under s.15(1) governs unrelated sales; valuation between related parties per Rule 28; consignment note required for unregistered rec...
ITAT principally agreed that the assessee-company could claim...
Substantial Expansion Under Section 80IC Requires Verification for 100% Deduction Despite Prior Year Allowance
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
AI Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
Income TaxMarch 24, 2025Case LawsAT
ITAT principally agreed that the assessee-company could claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC after "substantial expansion," treating it as an "initial assessment year" per Aarham Softronics (SC). However, the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had improperly allowed the modified deduction without verifying whether the assessee had actually carried out "substantial expansion" as defined in Section 80IC(8)(ix) or satisfied other statutory pre-conditions. The fact that AO had allowed enhanced deduction in the preceding year supported the assessee's claim but did not justify dispensing with verification requirements. The matter was restored to CIT(A) for readjudication after proper verification of all pre-conditions. Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.
ITAT principally agreed that the assessee-company could claim 100% deduction under Section 80IC after "substantial expansion," treating it as an "initial assessment year" per Aarham Softronics (SC). However, the Tribunal found that CIT(A) had improperly allowed the modified deduction without verifying whether the assessee had actually carried out "substantial expansion" as defined in Section 80IC(8)(ix) or satisfied other statutory pre-conditions. The fact that AO had allowed enhanced deduction in the preceding year supported the assessee's claim but did not justify dispensing with verification requirements. The matter was restored to CIT(A) for readjudication after proper verification of all pre-conditions. Revenue's appeal and assessee's cross-objection were allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.